CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Fox News is fair in the sense that it tries to balance out the media bias. Fox is conservative (YAY!) whereas every other major news station is liberal. It's only fair that the conservatives get a station. :)
Is it some sort of corporate-wide insecurity that makes them do this, or is it simple Machiavellian strategy to repeat a falsehood until people accept it as fact?
It is a conservative station and that is fine. I enjoy many a afternoon laughing at Sean Hannity.
However, they shouldn't claim to be fair or balanced. They are so very obviously biased and unbalanced. I would respect them more if they would own up to it, instead of pretending not to be a religious, republican's eye candy.
Two of the greatest red-faced moments I've ever seen that logically and methodically exposed a self-described journalist as an ideologue mired in his quest for ratings:
1) The Gibbs-Hannity interview in October
2) Thinking people calling Hannity's bluff as he agrees to be waterboarded (two weeks ago?).
True, I do not think they guy will ever cease to entertain. Although, I have to say...Glenn Beck is steadily nipping at his heels in the race for who is more entertaining...
Anyway, a while ago, a memo went out to gay rights activists to "not go on fox news." About a week after I got this memo, I saw a gay author on the network, there to tell his side of the story. He was ripped to shreds, not because his points weren't valid, but because papa bear always gets the last word.
They bring liberals in where they can control them and twist their words. That's not fair.
The only fair thing about Fox News is that they hired Greta, even though she's tough to look at. That's more than I can say about CNN... oh wait they have Nancy Grace. Nevermind.
Also, just an aside, but I cringe a bit when people say 'root for' in the context of politics. It's not the Patriots vs. the Jets, some people actually think about their support rather than swearing blind allegiance.
I'd also like you to quantify "many". I'll admit, I've seen one or two, but they don't seem nearly as frequent as conservative pundits. The liberal pundits are usually more likely to get shouted down or have their mic cut off.
I can cite a few examples. First, let's go back to the campaign, wherein they asked if Barack Obama's fist pound with his wife was a terrorist fist jab.
It's one of their favorite tactics. They believe that if you phrase anything in the form of a question then it's not flagrant bias/opinion.
Another example comes from the movie The Corporation, wherein three reporters are featured on a new segment called The Investigators. The reporters are told to ask tough questions and go after any story...So they do. They investigate the use of the bovine growth hormone (BGH). Their investigation proves that it is not only unsafe for the cow, who is at a highly increased risk for infection, but that bacteria is more likely to be transmitted to people through milk of cows treated. Anyway, the investigators look into this and find fault lies with Monsanto and the FDA, but apparently that's one of the places the investigators are not supposed to investigate, because FoxNews fights with them to pull the story. The entire video can be viewed here which I highly suggest.
OutFoxed is a documentary surrounding FoxNews's agenda and the tactics they use, such as cutting opponent's microphones and talking over them. I have not seen the film, but I have seen clips, such as this one about the FoxNews tactic of inserting opinions by saying "some people say..." Check it out.
In conclusion, FoxNews is a terrible "news" organization, focused on infotainment, not journalism. They are neither fair, nor balanced, and the fact that they pretend to be is a joke.
they provide equal air time to both sides of the argument (liberal and conservative) according to the Project of Excellence in Journalism.
also, they report EVERYTHING. not only the stuff that is convenient to their ideology. News Corp does what makes them the most money. They know they get the most ratings when they provide good debates between liberals and conservatives. That's what Americans like. This is why Fox News is number 1 in cable news. and top 10 in cable.
News Corp even allows rival companies (General Electric, owner of MSNBC) to put advertisements on their channel.
Capitialism at it's best. they don't focus on ideology, they focus on what makes them money. what makes them money? fair and balanced news.
Thank you for saying all of that. I couldn't agree more.
Even If Fox News wasn't fair and balanced (which it is) why does anyone care!? Other News channels admit to being partisan but nobody crying about that. Look at what MKiced said. Fox is not completely conservative but even if it was it would balance everything out.
People, you don't have to watch anything you don't like. You watch your CNN, msnbc, NBC, ABC news, etc, and we will watch Fox News.
"...you don't have to watch anything you don't like."
That's the problem with cable news! It's run through an ideological filter before it even hits the proverbial press. It's not Cronkite/Murrow-era journalism, it's entertainment designed to suck in anyone whose ideology matches the opinions (by and large, that's what they call "news") that they're broadcasting. I am never anything short of astonished when I run across people who just don't see that Fox is the most egregious contributor to this, and that their "opinion journalism" is poisoning a very important pillar of our democracy.
I will admit that Pyg had a good argument for being 'balanced', but without fair, you've got nothing. And Fox "News" is anything but - they're a complete joke within their own industry.
Furthermore, the ratings argument is extremely fallacious in a discussion of what is "fair and balanced" journalism. The masses are asses - this is proven in spades every time Britney Spears and Larry the Cable Guy go on tour (separately, of course, but I don't know...I might pay to see that....anyway, getting back on track.....).
Going even further, do you really want ratings to drive the discussion of what you need to know?
they are both fair and balanced. they separate their reporting from their punditry.
The thing is, people want good debates about a subject. So they can hear why something might be good or bad. if you JUST report, most people won't understand shit about it. this is why pundits are there to explain things. what Fox does is make sure that there are pundits of all types in order to make sure that the explanations are balanced. of course, this leads to good debates (debates are necessary in order to get the truth).
and it's better than full reporting that is just complete bias (BBC). they say "o, we don't have punditry so we're not bias" yet they don't realize that bias also comes from reporting only what they find ideologically sound.
We're talking about Fox News Channel as a whole. By your own admission, there's a significant amount of punditry. And punditry by definition is biased.
Given, there's bias in any story, of course - but why does it make it any better to declare up front that that's what you're going to do? And what's this "separation" you speak of? Do they have a punditry icon in the corner? Do they run a segment before their punditry spots in place of commercials?
I agree with you that people "want" debates. But debates and NEWS, Commentary and Journalism are two different animals entirely. And for this, I say again: Fox "News Channel" is a joke within its own industry.
they have pundits and they have reporters. The reporters tell stories with no opinions behind them. and they are through out the line up. sometimes in between commercials and even cutting in during a show.
punditry shows both sides. so the channel isn't biased. the pundit may be... but by that definition people are generally biased. they believe in a cause. pundits are paid to give their assessment on a situation. what Fox News does is provide both sides of the argument in order to ensure a balanced opinionated forum.
they provide non biased news as well. this is just for knowing the bare facts and not hearing any assessment on the situation and what people feel they should do about a certain something. Plain news is not insightful to most people, so Fox News (and the other Cable News channels) use pundits to help people reach their insight.
Here's my point. O'Reilly still calls himself a journalist. As does Hannity. Journalism - I think we agree - should be unbiased.
Now, is there a difference between:
"Tonight, thousands of protesters picketed the G8 summit", and
"On tonight's "Pinheads and Patriots" segment, thousands of loons stood outside the ____ building."?
Of course. There's certainly a great deal of bias in the second statement, and it's not really that much of an exaggeration of something you'd hear on any one night. This is an example of how they blur the line between opinion and fact, and how - really - their primary goal is entertainment, not reporting the news.
Really...can you name one person on Fox News's staff that is comparable to a Brian Williams or a Walter Cronkite? Someone who is really only a face of news and nothing else?
Brian Williams? the guy is a biased prick, and the worse part is, he calls himself an anchor.
O'Reilly and Hannity have identified them as pundits who are paid to give their opinions. they also do their own research, but they still consider themselves as pundits on televised editorials.
as for unbiased reporters and anchors, there's so many, here are just a few:
Courtney Friel
Anna Gilligan
Brian Wilson
Patti Anne Browne
Jim Angle
all who do not resort to opinions while reporting or anchoring.
I don't know. They have some true reporters, correct. I see your point, but I still don't think I buy the notion that one is not the other, and you should be able to tell the difference, especially in regard to Hannity and O'Reilly, et al.
By the same token (and I'll admit up front that I don't know this for absolute certainty, but would be willing to bet a whole soda), I don't think Brian Williams has ever called anyone a pinhead on his program. As such, the standard of journalism on your average nightly news program can be safely said to be notably higher than that of your average Fox News program. Or no?
The crux of FOX's false claim to balance is the journalistic confound known as "False Balance." This means presenting both sides of an issue, and often giving equal time to their coverage. This creates the sense in the viewer that the sides are equally supported and mobilized, so the choice must be between the two.
September 2005: 100,000- 200,000 people took to the streets to protest the Iraq War. Due to the novelty (It's not News unless it's New), the 200 pro-war counterdemonstrators were given more media attention across the media. Photos are taken along the boundary between the two, so crowds seem to be of equal size.
I don't think Fox has this filter you are talking about. Like thepyg said they report everything, which is fair. Then they have balanced discussion on the issues.
Do you not see other news channels as guilty as Fox, if not way way way worse?
If not then I think you have an ideological filter.
Of course I have an ideological filter. So do you, which is why it's not a good idea to be getting so-called news from a source that's unashamedly pandering to either of us.
Okay, good point but I still don't think fox news is unashamedly pandering.
You have to admit it's at least not as bad as MSNBC and all that crap. I'm sure you never watch that.
Hey, even if Fox News was unashamedly pandering to me(whatever that means) what are you so worried about!? I don't plan on changing my views any time soon and I didn't get those views from TV so I mine as well watch something I agree with.
Since you are so concerned about an adult watching the news, I can assume that you are against bad news and language on TV. Kids might watch that stuff.
Please let me explain, then, as long as that does not constitute telling you what to do. I corrected you so that I could reply, I did not reply so that I could correct you.
Your stating that you "[might] as well watch something [you] agree with" could not have been a better illustration of my point. You have an ideological filter, and you admitted to seeking out opinions that match that. Does this really require an explanation?
Accepting opinions that only match yours - as news, no less - is dangerous and kind of makes one a lazy citizen. That's what's wrong with it - if you're asking me.
And since a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get out of bed (as the saying goes..), it kind of makes it tough on thinking people when they have to deal with an army of ideologues, no matter what the source (i.e., MSNBC as well). Propaganda and misinformation are very powerful things.
And, uh, no. I'm not going to tell you what to watch. Easy question.
When it comes to news, it really would be good if, no matter which channel we choose, it's just news and not all the BS that surrounds it with talking heads.
Good thing I have the freedom to watch whatever "BS" I wan't.
It's amazing to me how people(not you necessarily) that are not against bad language and sex on TV and Porn are so worried about opinionated right wingers poisoning my mind.
Are you fucking kidding? Is JakeJ a Colbert-like character you've concocted?
Apparently, you think bad language and sex on TV are equally as objectionable as
:a mindset that legitimizes the use of torture to the younger generation?
:people who "value life" so much they want to ban all abortion, yet are opposed to a Vaccine against HPV on the grounds of sexual mores?
:mentally training Americans in an "Us vs them" mentality that allows them to unquestioningly support the actions of the last 8 years, and then condemn them when the next president continues them?
You should travel. Maybe you'll understand how profoundly fucked up and violent our culture is, when you get a little bit of perspective.
Other News channels admit to being partisan but nobody crying about that.
Exactly. The operative word there is admit. People prefer an honest bias to liars like Fox who only pretend to be impartial. If you truly believe Fox is "fair and balanced" then I suggest crawling out from under the rock you live under.
"Even If Fox News wasn't fair and balanced (which it is) why does anyone care!? Other News channels admit to being partisan but nobody crying about that."
yeah, Hannity decided to get in on the media hype of Obama going to a fast food joint. he just decided to poke a joke at him, as Hannity always does. But, that's what he's payed for. To give his opinion and to poke fun at things going on in the media. if you watch his show all the time (which i actually stopped doing some time ago), you'll see that he always makes harmless jokes whenever something becomes way bigger than it has to (like Obama at a fast food restaurant).
anyway, Red Eye, which is a comedy/news show on FNC, actually made fun of the whole hysteria over Obama at the joint, but they also pointed out that Dijon mustard is the same price as regular mustard. In fact, Jim Norton (stand up comic who is a conservative) said he spits on anyone who uses regular yellow mustard.
Interestingly enough, he also did not define himself as an antelope. Who defines themselves as a "non-pundit"? I'm sorry, but I didn't realize we were discussing made-up classifications.
When Marilyn Manson gets a job on _______ "News Channel" and appears to be reporting news, then we can talk about his impact on truthfulness and bias in media. But until then, (as you mentioned) Sean Hannity is a pundit, and (as you conveniently didn't mention) not a journalist, and is just as much an entertainer as....well, Marilyn Manson.
he reports issues that he sees. he does his own research. he conducts interviews to learn the truth. all works of a journalist. many pundits can conduct journalism. but they differ themselves from "Hard News" which is just the reporting. Hannity does the reporting and then the punditry. Fox News reporters only report.
While it is true that most news stations are very liberal, Fox News is conservative to the point where facts are warped, which is just wrong, in my opinion. As a native Swede, I rely on BBC for my news.