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 just as balance in providing the news as MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC. However, commentary on Fox, MSNBC and CNN is partial. If Fox is the political arm to Republicans, then MSNBC is the political arm to the Democrats.
No news source is 'fair and balanced'. They all have an agenda, the difference is that CNN is liberal, and Fox is conservative which is most likely why you hear bad things about Fox from liberals.
While I am not claiming that CNN is completely fair, or that there doesn't exist some small liberal bias (however slight), I think it is wholly unfair to compare them to fox news. Fox's conservatism is actually organized, and people are hired and fired based on political views, whereas CNN's bias is not at all institutional but probably stemming from the background world view of those people in charge.
I think if you're going to make these kind of claims, comparing MSNBC to FOX would be more fair, because MSNBC often includes the same pundit style programming that is slanted to the left, much the way Fox includes pundits that are on the right.
I like John Stewart's analogy of Fox to an autoimmune disease. It is an over-reaction to a perceived liberal bias that causes more harm than the original problem.
Get down off your high horse. I don't watch CNN near enough to have been indoctrinated, and I'm not even ardently fighting an accusation like you claim. What I am saying is that whatever liberal bias that may exist isn't even close to what exists on Fox news.
Then again these are just claims that we are each making, how about we look at the facts themselves. I will post a link to an example of Fox being bias, and you give me an example from CNN.
Like I said earlier, yes, there are instances of liberal bias in CNN's coverage often, however, it pales in comparison to the organized, and deliberate bias that exists in Fox's news coverage.
As far as your clips go, I do agree that there is bias there, however, as far as the Iraq clip, it comes from a time when the majority of the U.S. believed the war to be a failure, so the report is less liberally biased, and more a reflection of current popular opinion. Is this still bad journalism? An argument can be made that it certainly is.
Plus, I think you should have read more of the wikipedia article you posted. Part of it talks about leniency towards Bush leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I think that instead of arguing that CNN is the liberal counterpart to Fox, one would have an easier time saying that CNN just isn't a very good news network (for example, Glenn Beck used to work for them).
I guess it's mostly the fact that Fox distorts the facts. I can understand editorializing on pundit shows, that's really not what bothers me; however, when a news network intentionally tell lies they are acting in the exact opposite way journalists should act.
As far as you being arrogant, it has very little to do with the words you use, and a lot more to do with the fact that anyone who disagrees with you is "close minded," "indoctrinated" or something else along these lines. I hold strong opinions, but never have I been so arrogant as to think less of someone because they think differently.
I guess it's mostly the fact that Fox distorts the facts.
Doesn't CNN, as well?
when a news network intentionally tell lies they are acting in the exact opposite way journalists should act.
Has CNN remained entirely free of falsification?
I hold strong opinions, but never have I been so arrogant as to think less of someone because they think differently.
I believe you've misinterpreted what I write. I've gathered a small following on another debate-related site with my theories of subliminal messaging and indoctrination. Anybody who will defend a position and not look at all other possible sides could be said to have been indoctrinated by said position.
My opinions are fairly original - I simply want people to give them 'the time of day', and not to write them off as utter nonsense. If people will automatically disregard an opinion as being improper without searching for propriety via my additional details, I will declare them to be close-minded.
I do consider other opinions; though I do hold very little which I consider to be a 'personal opinion', most of what I write is written for the purpose of debate.
By organized and deliberate what I meant was that reporters aren't hired based on political preference (once again, note that Glenn Beck worked for CNN before Fox) nor encouraged to report the news in a particular (biased) way. On the other hand Fox News president Roger Ailes was an adviser to three past Republican presidents (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush), Fox News executive vice president John Moody (following a 2003 Bush Mideast initiative) wrote to staffers, “[Bush's] political courage and tactical cunning [are worth] noting in our reporting through the day”, and Fox News senior vice president for programming Bill Shine referred in March to Fox as “the voice of opposition” to the Obama administration. In addition, people who have interviewed for Fox report being questioned about their political affiliation. One reporter (Andrew Kirtzman) even stated that Fox stopped contacting him after he refused to reveal his political party.
As far as the link you posted, the arguments in it are fairly petty, and not at all a good example of deliberate bias. They argue that because CNN uses the term "suicide bomber" instead of "terrorist" they are somehow liberal. Give me a brake.
Has CNN remained entirely free of falsification?
If you're going to argue that they are as bad as fox news you would have to show me that they have made distortions of the facts, on numerous occasions, mostly in favor of the left.
My opinions are fairly original - I simply want people to give them 'the time of day', and not to write them off as utter nonsense. If people will automatically disregard an opinion as being improper without searching for propriety via my additional details, I will declare them to be close-minded.
I find this statement pretty ironic. You, on numerous occasions have written off what I have said as nonsense, and yet complain that you don't want the same done to you. This very debate, you did not even consider that I had come to my conclusion that CNN wasn't as biased as Fox based on evidence, but instead based on indoctrination. I'm guessing that after having read my arguments you have reevaluated this position.
The reason that I disagree with your positions is not because of any close mindedness on my behalf, but a failure to present convincing arguments on yours. The fact that you haven't realized this is further evidence of your arrogance: you can't imagine that your own arguments are flawed, or that another valid point of view exists. You try and put the blame on me, but to find the real culprit, look in a mirror.
I have a question, if CNN is liberal and Fox conservative, what is MSNBC? Because I've heard them bash on Republicans but I have also heard them bash on Democrats.
Technically, all news is fair and balanced. News is just the report of what happened during a day or week. Even when people like Glenn Beck say "the president did this today" he's just reporting, and in that moment he's being fair and balanced. When Beck goes on to argue "this is what it means for you" or something, and goes off on some tirade about the President seeking reparations and white slavery he's no longer being fair and balanced. It's the commentary or analysis that's skewed, not the news.
Although I agree with your paragraph in general, I do disagree that all news is fair and balanced. Even in the act of choosing what to report there is subjectivity and this can create issues of balance. If, for example, a major news provider decided to gloss over a story that made one political party look less favorable, but spend a lot of time reporting on another story that made an opposing party look bad then this could be seen as slanting the news to fit ones agenda. Yes it is only facts being presented, but the facts are hand selected, and slanted in a way that is meant to support a certain viewpoint, or lead the viewers to come to certain conclusions.
There is no fair news network, Fox having one of the biggest bias I have ever seen. I hate them with the burning intensity of a thousand suns. It exists for the pure purpose of controlling the masses.
