| Revision as of 03:51, 14 December 2005 editIlyanep (talk | contribs)Administrators7,054 editsm moved Talk:Fox News/to do to Talk:Fox News Channel/to do← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:29, 18 October 2016 edit undoCuchullain (talk | contribs)Administrators83,895 editsm Cuchullain moved page Talk:Fox News Channel/to do to Talk:Fox News/to do: Per move discussion | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| (Feel free to this list and add stuff into here that you think needs to be worked on) | (Feel free to this list and add stuff into here that you think needs to be worked on) | ||
| * In the spirit of being Balanced and Fair, shouldn't the 5 part Criticism/Allegations Of Bias/Controversies sections be placed in a separate entry perhaps called "'''Television News Media Bias'''"? After all, there is no such section for the MSNBC entry and only a small blurb for CNN (there isn't even a bias section for Al-Jazeera). Having such a long ''"editorial"'' describing possible right-wing bias of FOX News with paragraph after paragraph of criticisms only seems to add merit to a Left-wing conspiracy....and noone wants to be accused of that. Otherwise, some might start adding sections to MSNBC regarding the bias and political views of it's hosts (Matthews, Obermann, Imus, etc). I think it would be better to stick to the basic information and facts and then link to editorials and alleged biases of ALL the 24 hour news networks in a different Entry. | |||
| *Program articles to expand : | |||
| *We need to iron out the wrinkles that have been caused by a lot of edits recently and some issues, such as: | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Right Wing vs. Conservative | |||
| **] | |||
| :#206.15.101.1-2's edits | |||
| *Articles to create : | |||
| :#Ratings Drop | |||
| **] | |||
| :#AQH vs. CUME Rating | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Kerry's Pen | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Oil-for-food | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Cavuto -- Social Security -- Michael Jackson | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Whistleblower Lawsuit | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Ailes "rebuttal" | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Fox didn't have the highest ratings during the Democratic Convention. CNN did. A simple google search will tell you this. | |||
| **] | |||
| *Some sections probably need to be re-written: | |||
| *Articles to modify/expand : | |||
| :#"Major Stories Fox Has Broken" | |||
| **] | |||
| :#FAIR bulletpoint | |||
| **] | |||
| :#Bias Section needs to be completely reorganized. | |||
| *Other apparent issues : | |||
| *Grammar | |||
| **Come to a decision on format of "Controversies" introduction | |||
| :#Several instances of punctuation outside of quotes need to be corrected. In most cases, punctuation belongs inside quotes. For example, "this is a quote," and "this is, too." Note the comma and period are enclosed within the quotation marks. | |||
| **Decide if public opinions of political organizations (], ], et al) are ], ], and can be presented in a ] fashion. | |||
| :#:Everything until "Trademark Disputes" with periods has been fixed. I haven't looked at commas yet. — ] ] 17:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :#::I just checked the punctuation within quotes throughout the article, and fixed all errors I could find. If someone would like to confirm that this is completed, we can remove grammar from this to do list. — Ash211 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:29, 18 October 2016
(Feel free to edit this list and add stuff into here that you think needs to be worked on)
- Program articles to expand :
- Articles to create :
- Articles to modify/expand :
- Other apparent issues :
- Come to a decision on format of "Controversies" introduction
- Decide if public opinions of political organizations (Media Matters, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, et al) are notable, encyclopedic, and can be presented in a neutral fashion.