Talk:Fox & Friends

This article is rather innapropriate Perfect77 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way? :: Chris 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"conservative" label

This is another example of political bias in Wikipedia. Fox & Friends is the only morning American news broadcast that contains a label--in this case "conservative." The people reverting the removal keep pointing to "it's sourced" as the reason to revert the removal, but the sourcing is a political point of view. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is "Neutral Point of View (NPOV)." Reverting to a political label is a clear violation of NPOV. Why do we have these types of issues on Wikipedia?71.239.145.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

WATCH AND LEARN: Here's how to insert leftwing POV into an article. 1) Bury your POV "sourced" material in the article figuring no one will object. 2) Wait a few days and then add your POV content before the previously added "sourced" material. 3) Edit war ensues regarding the newly added POV content. 4) Get a liberal editor to back you up (e.g. corrupt editors will block, revert or lock the content you inserted). 5) Create a "Talk" point showing "consensus" for your POV or "no consensus" justifying the retention of your POV--remember the previously buried POV "sourced" material. 6) Send threatening "Message" to honest editors trying to remove POV threatening to block the honest editors. WHAT A JOKE. 2601:243:C301:732:D926:E6D0:CE66:62F5 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You say F&F isn't conservative? Are you trying to convince us or yourself? There's nothing biased about calling F&F what it is, a conservative show, the same way there's nothing biased about calling Keith Olbermann a liberal. Luc Donald Vélour (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to lock page

In light of news about Trump's interview to Fox and Friends, there has been vandalism happening here. Can this page and those of other related Fox News personalities be temporarily locked? Greatly appreciated. --Smghz (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Needs a "reception" section

Fox and friends is a fairly polarizing show, in that those who have a certain political point of view identify strongly with it, whereas those who have a different political view do not identify with it, sometimes to the point of considering it offensive. I propose a section, written from a WP:NPOV, that describes the reception of the show by critics and proponents. For example, something with statements similar to taking the form of

Critics of the regular segment, The Trouble with Textbooks, argue that the phrases declared to be "Banned" from books are not in fact banned at all, as there is no notable force prohibiting authors from using language of their choosing in their published works. Fans of the show view this segment as bringing attention to political correctness being valued over content and accuracy in textbooks.

Proponents of chunky peanut butter assert that peanut chunks add a much needed crunch, while critics complain that peanut pieces can get stuck in your teeth.

This format has been proven to avoid WP:POV forking, and describes points of view without advocating any. MichaelLNorth (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stop using Newshounds as the source of your criticism. Arzel (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

With an accusation like that, I certainly hope you have a diff or something. This is not the place to launch personal attacks. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you know the meaning of personal attacks. A simple search of "The Trouble with Textbooks" brings up only hits to Newshounds. Perhaps you got it from Colbert, but it doesn't really matter. The point is if you are going to present some POV you should probably include some reference to back up your claim. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You misread my comment (the "For example" and "similar to" immediately preceding the part in italics). I was simply providing an example of how points of view can be acknowledged without becoming a POV magnet. Your comment "stop using Newshounds" implies that I used newshounds as a source of criticism in the first place. The claim that I use newshounds as a source is, in essence, an accusation of not knowing how to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate references, and an accusation of being partisan. Please carefully read WP:POV for information on why this article needs information regarding points of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to use an example of something that "Needs" to be in this article and then use a very poor example, you don't put yourself in a very good position to argue your merits. If a certain point of view does not meet weight concerns then there is no requirement that it be included in the article. You seem to be searching for criticism to add to the article to "balance" it out (for you). If there are examples of criticism that are notable they will present themselves quite easily. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my example to avoid the confusion that you're experiencing. I'd like to remind you that the absence of important (notable) points of view is not the same thing as WP:NPOV. Your comment "You seem to be searching for criticism to add to the article to "balance" it out (for you)." is another personal attack. I suggest that you read WP:NPA carefully, and to assume good faith. The point of this RFC is to evaluate whether or not the absence of any WP:NPOV information on all points of view regarding Fox and Friends is "balanced". MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And just how do you evauluate if an article is unbalanced if you fail to provide any examples of what is missing that would show how it is unbalanced. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. Give me about two days to come up with something organized, complete with proposed section to insert. All I have right now is raw links that I dropped into a text file. I'll let you know when I have it ready so you can weigh in. I was hoping that others would join the conversation and help to hammer down a consensus, but it seems as if I will have to do more of the work than expected. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great American Ham Sandwich Incident

Should the story run by F&F that was later shown to be untrue also be added to the controversies section? For those who don't know, information from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/ ... admittedly not the most unbiased source, however. 134.84.100.80 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

BIAS

I can't believe there is no mention of bias in this article. This show has a very strong right wing bias, which surprises me because most morning shows aren't generally too political in nature. However every time I turn on the TV in the morning and scan across fox & friends, I hear normal morning talk morph into "If Democrats win the terrorists will take over the world" type nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.75.18125 October 2006 (talk)

Maybe it's because one man's bias is another man's "fair and balanced." Realkyhick 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense? We'll wait and see.Lestrade 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Where's the BIAS topic on the Today Show page? Or the CBS Morning Show page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.72.64 (talk • contribs)

In all respects, FNC is pointed towards more often than the main networks for bias. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly String and Geraldo's map in the sand??

Folks, I know a lot of you don't Like Fox News because you believe it's biased toward the right wing, just as many people believe their competitors are biased toward the left wing. But to say the show's demonstration of how allied forces in Iraq use Silly String to detect trip wires for IED's is "reminiscent" of Geraldo Rivera's "map in the sand" incident is really stretching things. I took the paragraph out of the Trivia section. Realkyhick 11:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, however, the infamous "sand map" left a few low level military commanders annoyed with Geraldo. It wasn't that we knew what was going on but that those familiar with the area might get a clue. I have been in the military and I will tell you now we get a little touchy about that "as it happens" troop movement reporting. To be fair (and balanced) the commanders let it go once they realized that we had knocked out Iraq's electricity.--Art8641 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a section in this article that dealt with the 3/21/08 fiasco on Fox & Friends during which Chris Wallace chastised Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade for their ruminations about Barack Obama's "typical white person" comment - the same episode in which Kilmeade eventually walked off the set? If there was no section on this episode, it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark2680 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

The controversies section is heavily dependent upon one source. Media Matters is the only source listed for all controversies, most of which seem to of minor importance. Unless additional sources can be found, this section should be trimmed to include only the actual controversies least it appear to be undue weight from one organization. Arzel 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No responses. I changed the wording since all controversies are associated with MM. Also removed one criticism without citation. Arzel 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why my entry on the controversy surrounding Doocy and the Vitter scandal was removed. It was entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You need a reliable source talking about it, what you did was insert crooks and liars, which is hardly a reliable source. Also, you presented the entire section in the form of OR. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not original research, but you could say that Doocy's analysis was, and faulty research at best. And while you may not like crooks & liars, they posted a video clip. In other words, the link allowed you to see it for yourself, regardless of whether or not you choose to read the commentary that comes with it. But, I've provided a link to a transcript of an episode of Dan Abrams who called him on it. I think its fair to say that is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, C&R is not reliable, and just posting a video link to the broadcast is OR on the part of the person including the incident. I see you included an actual RS, but I hardly see this as a controversy. Doucy apparently did make a mistake, but I haven't heard this being discussed at any length. To include would be a case of undue weight. If we start including every time someone makes a mistake CNN, FNC, MSNBC, and so on will be filled with useless criticism, and nothing more than a saopbox for those that don't like those particular organizations. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake Ham Story

I have removed the Fake Ham Story. This involves Associated Content where by a fake news story was reported as true, it does not involve FNC, please do not insert controversy which is guilt by association. Arzel 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Needed

This article doesn't include a logo used for this show. One should be added just to convey the article.--megamanfan3 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- There is a Fox & Friends logo there now; is it current? -- AstroU (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for repeated removals?

I'd like to discuss the rationale behind these repeated removals of sourced material. To me, this material appears relevant and properly sourced, and thus it's inappropriate to keep deleting it. (In fact, it's pretty much the only material in the article that's appropriately sourced to independent, reliable sources). As best I can tell, the edit summaries removing the material indicate that an editor disagrees with what the sources say, or believes that "Good Morning America" is equally biased, or something. None of these are appropriate rationales to remove sourced material, so I'd like to get a little more understanding of where this is coming from. MastCell ^Talk 05:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be returned.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been returned for the better part of four months. I do agree that seeing as it's well sourced, it belongs in the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More Recent Removals

I would like to draw attention here... [1]. The user who undid the claim made the claim that none of the sourced articles "appear to mention F&F" and "the MMfA doesn't even mention it."

"Fox News Channel -- which hosted Scheuer dozens of times before his validation of attempts to assassinate the president -- has continued to invite Scheuer on in recent months. Fox & Friends Sunday invited the former CIA officer on in June, and after having appeared on the weekday edition of Fox & Friends in February, the show invited him back August 1." - in talking about the controversial conservative figure Scheuer and his appearance on conservative television.

"But it was Fox News that seemed to almost adopt the [Tea Party] movement. Media outlets tend to downplay or ignore protest activities, often “treating antiwar protests as police and transportation stories, rather than First Amendment stories with a message.” But Media Matters for America detailed extensive efforts by Fox to promote Tea Party events even before they occurred, with coverage on Fox & Friends, America’s Newsroom, Your World, Special Report, The O’Reilly Factor, and On the Record" - Talking about the birth and spread of Tea Party Conservatism.

"For example, in a February 2007 Fox & Friends segment titled, “Weather Wars,” Inhofe deceptively argued that global warming was in fact due to natural causes and mainstream science was beginning to accept this conclusion. Inhofe asserted, unchallenged by host Steve Doocy, “those individuals on the far left, such as Hollywood liberals and the United Nations,” want the public to believe that global warming is manmade. Similar frames of scientific uncertainty and economic consequences continue to be pushed by other conservative commentators, including influential syndicated columnists George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Tony Blankley." - Talking about the conservative media coverage of Climate Change.

The other two are dubious and arguable, but at the very least these talk about it quite directly.

(it should also be said that this brings it in line with what is said about it already in other wikipedia pages [2])

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.234 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Non of those sources calls that program a conservative show. It requires OR and Synthesis to come to that conclusion. Arzel (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read "Thompson, Ethan, and Jason Mittell. "Fox & Friends: Political Talk." How to Watch Television. 168-76?" It's literally an article written entirely and completely about the conservative stance of Fox & Friends.

"Fox & Friends also attempts to craft a feeling of community, but not in terms of gender or consumption interests. Rather, conservative ideology serves as the crucial mechanism linking Fox viewers to each other and to the channel."

"the function of the program is to begin the broadcast day with cavalier discussions of political matters... that can prime the audience, both cognitively and semiotically, for similar narratives derived from contemporary right-wing conservative ideology which they will encounter throughout Fox’s schedule."

"It is... in the realm of performance, that we should look to understand how and why Fox & Friends not only differs so much from its morning talk show competition, but also serves a particular role in branding Fox News as conservative." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.51 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was odd that this piece was removed, since it seemed to be well-sourced. The NYT article called it "reliably conservative." Article seems incomplete without a mention of the show's political viewpoint, especially in recent years. Some of the sources are 5+ years old, and a cursory search now lists many published within the past year that examine the show's stance. I'm adding an additional source and putting this bit back in the article since this discussion did not end in consensus. —DMCer™ 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

---

References

trump getting news here

• 1) a lot of publications are saying that Trump is using this show as a brainstorming source for ideas and policy
• 2) according to several publications, he watches this show every day
• 3) some sources have analyzed his statements and concluded that he regularly bases them on fox and friends broadcasts
• 4) he has live tweeted the show on many occasions
• 5) some publications have concluded that this show is actively shaping the policies that he puts forward.

Does any of this have any bearing on this article? Schnapps17 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and now SNL did a sketch on the subject, so it is clearly part of the public consciousness now. Schnapps17 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Yorker Article about this; "How “Fox & Friends” Rewrites Trump’s Reality" from January 15 2018 Issue https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/how-fox-and-friends-rewrites-trumps-reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:664F:3000:651D:9C77:1873:ECDB (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Greg Kelly

(going to sleep very soon, don't have time to add to article) Can someone add Greg Kelly to "Former hosts" section? Wikipedia's Greg Kelly article say "he was the co-host of Fox and Friends" (probably change "the co-host" to "a co-host"). A source: https://www.foxnews.com/story/greg-kelly starts with "In the spring of 2007, Greg Kelly was named co-anchor of FOX & Friends Weekend. ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)