Debate Info

Yes, one side is objective No, both are sensationalist
Debate Score:45
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes, one side is objective (18)
 No, both are sensationalist (20)

Debate Creator

Demosthenes9(15) pic

Is there any difference in the objectivity shown by Fox News/Breitbart v. CNN/HuffPo?

One of the big issues in America today is the legitimacy of news reporting.  I really wanted to see what people believed as to the objectivity of journalism and whether or not there is any trust left for journalistic integrity.  So a "yes" vote basically means "Yes, the side that agrees with my opinion is telling the truth and the other side is all fake news."  A "no" vote means that "all media coming out of mainstream outlets has become so biased that it can no longer be considered objective."

Yes, one side is objective

Side Score: 21

No, both are sensationalist

Side Score: 24
2 points

This is a report on the study from the Business Insider:

Incidentally, NPR rocks.

Side: Yes, one side is objective
1 point

Not that one side is truly objective, as humans, by and large are not objective - but there has never even been the feeblest attempt at objectivity from Breitbart, and Fox is so bad that those that strictly get their news from Fox have been shown to be more ignorant about current events and world news than those that don't watch news. That's a significant difference.

Side: Yes, one side is objective

Neither are truly objective, but comparing CNN to Fox and/or Breitbart is like comparing Obama to Joseph Goebbels. Breitbart is literally an Israeli propaganda operation. It was created in Israel with the specific intent to combat the Huffington's Post's perceived lukewarm attitude to Israel and Israeli politics.

Side: Yes, one side is objective

One side is for repressed pant-pissing conservative pigheads.

The other is for chill motherfuckers who love life and liberty.

Side: Yes, one side is objective
-2 points
Demosthenes9(15) Disputed
2 points

I'm not sure if you are serious with your comments, but if so, do you see how much you have been affected by this? You say the left wing fake news channels demonize Trump with no facts to back it up and then you immediately talk about Hillary's connection to Russia, Clinton foundation money with uranium deals, etc. but you have no facts to back it up.

It's exactly the sort of hypocritical nonsense I was talking about when I started this topic. For some reason you believe Fox's reports about the Clinton's connections but you won't believe CNN's reports about Trump. It doesn't make sense to me as an objective outsider and I'd really like to try to understand.

Side: No, both are sensationalist
2 points

You're hitting the nail on the head, there. They truly are both sensationalist, but they play to a different audience.

Hillary is corrupt, and was a terrible candidate, but the nonsense that continuously gets parroted is actually debunked thoroughly. Occasionally, someone from the right will bring up the truth that she corrupted the DNC, but it's usually the uranium ridiculousness that she had no control over. Trump is literally in the midst of the biggest scandal any president has ever been in, including Nixon, and is objectively less effective than any president in my lifetime.

HuffPo and CNN's audience understand checking sources...and fact checking in general. To the average Fox and Breitbart watcher, everything is a liberal conspiracy.

Side: No, both are sensationalist
FromWithin(7680) Disputed
1 point

Either you do not watch the news, or you are not listening with all the facts about Clinton's scandals. You will never hear those facts if listening to fake news channels.

I have heard the information about Trump's connection to Russia and most of it is pure conjecture and witch hunts. In case you missed it, the Left hates Trump! They loved Obama and Hillary.

Fox reports on those conjectures, and also reports on when there is no hard evidence to back up the conjecture. After all this investigation, they still have NOTHING worth going after.

They now know that FBI agents were Hillary supporters and against trump. This is why their investigation proved her guilt and then did NOTHING about it.

Side: Yes, one side is objective
mrcatsam(576) Clarified
1 point

Yes, you are still not listening to me.

You only say that Fox News is more in line with facts because they tell you what you want to hear, not what's true. I've done research in the past on American Journalism, and Fox News is by far the most biased out of all of them.

But Right Wingers paint Hillary as a corrupt, crooked person, and we also hear your lovely president refer, quite disrespectfully, to a woman as Pocohantas because he disagrees with her.

Their "Witch Hunt" is digging up some content. At least 3 individuals affiliated with the Administration have either lied to the FBI, or have colluded with the Russians somehow.

Have you ever even listened to CNN? MSNBC?

Not to mention, your president also insulted Ms. May by posting extremely rude and racist videos of "Muslims" attacking each other. They weren't even Muslim!!! They were Dutch!!!! This shows that he's not only a bad person overall, but he's also endorsing a far right neo nazi group, which is probably why American liberals call him a neo nazi.

He groped women repeatddly.

He has driven into your brains that there is going to be a wall to keep mexicans out.

He tried three times to ban muslim countries from having their residents come to the states.

So now do those accusations you listed seem not so arbitrary?

Side: Yes, one side is objective
FromWithin(7680) Clarified
1 point

I've done research in the past on American Journalism, and the Liberal biased fake news channels are by far the most biased out of all of them.


Where was the investigation against Bill Clinton's meeting with the Atourney general a day before the FBI decision on Hillary's corruption?

You waste my time!

Side: Yes, one side is objective
2 points

It is always absurd to me to think that people can hold up news reports from a media outlet on one side of the political spectrum and yet casually debase and disregard news reports from media outlets on the other side of the political spectrum. The worst part about it is that Trump has made it "cool" to discredit news, so now everything you disagree with can simply be labeled "fake news." To be fair, the media isn't helping themselves out much, there doesn't appear to be any journalistic integrity left, but the public is so easily persuaded by idiotic reports. I just hope this debate finds some argument somewhere that convinces me that members of the public can still view things objectively.

Side: No, both are sensationalist

The mainstream media of the right will spin the news with a wink and a nod, and most people won't ever see it because it's only on cable.

The mainstream media of the left will intentionally not cover, undercover, use actors in interviews, or even make up news for the sole sake of character assassinating those on the right. And their news cannot be avoided because eveyone has to see the major outlets to see basic programming. The left's number of outlets well outnumbers the right.

In fairness they both have blatant propaganda sites like CNN and Breitbart, but they are ignored simply by not going to those outlets.

It's impossible to ignore liberal outlets because they are ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc.

And even if you turn your tv off and watch only movies...there's the leftist propaganda anyway despite your effort.

Side: No, both are sensationalist
1 point

or even make up news

WMDs in Iraq?

Saddam lifting babies out of incubators and leaving them to die?


Do I need to go on?

Side: Yes, one side is objective
1 point

WMDs was the claim of the government and reported by news outlets from both sides. It had nothing to do with "right wing news outlets creating news". Be sure and explain which part you can't grasp.

Side: No, both are sensationalist
1 point

Do I need to go on

Sure do. Show us video of right wing news making these claims outside of reporting what the government itself claimed.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but there's a difference between reporting the government's claims and deliberately creating false news.

Side: No, both are sensationalist
1 point

I'm not entirely sure HuffPost is worse than Fox news but both have their sides and agenda's. We can't rely on our news sources anymore with the exception of a few and even then we can't take them at their word 100% of the time nor should we. Ultimately it falls on us to check facts before making opinions.

There was a chart someone posted here a LONG time ago that gave a graph on where multiple news stations/papers stood in terms of politics. Wish I could find it again.

Side: No, both are sensationalist

"45 percent of the claims we’ve checked from NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. At Fox and Fox News Channel, that same number is now 58 percent. At CNN, it’s 22 percent." source

When the one that lies the least still lies one out of every five times, you know there is a major problem with the trustworthiness of the mainstream media.

Side: No, both are sensationalist

Yes, this. Also, CNN numbers are on the rise. Look at Reuters though, which has only a 4% rating with 0% pants on fire.

Side: No, both are sensationalist