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.
Nobody in their right ....er.....healthy mind goes by the BLC report ... that WOULD be "creating news". Did "libs" create the story of crazy Mika & psycho-Joe? No, it was there, in Humpty Trumpty's Tweets. Libs just reported it.
The "main stream media" is just that, the main stream of America's knowledge, of America's facts. Now, you take Faux News .... please! It's as phony as the BLC's "facts".
Considering that you don't seem like the type of person who reads or watches the type of media that you are complaining about, I would like to point out that what you just said is not factually accurate.
For example.
1.) All major LIBERAL media outlets published stories AT LENGTH about Hillary's emails, hacked Podesta and DNC emails, possible conflicts of interest with the Clinton foundation, etc. Indeed, the NYT was a massive critic of Hillary Clinton, and frequently pointed out many of her problems and issues.
2.) All major LIBERAL media outlets reported AT LENGTH on the leaked Comey letter about the re-opening of investigation based on Anthony Weiner Emails; and this was the headline for several days.
3.) More recently, the LIBERAL media, has been openly exposing the problems with the DNC and democrats after the failure to win GA06, and have been reporting on some of the fallout for Pelosi.
4.) Trump was widely praised by the LIBERAL media over his handling and reaction to Syrian use of chemical weapons, he drew wide praise for his response to the Baseball shooting last week, and he drew a large amount of praise for his "Non-State of the Union address", with even liberal media outlets saying things like "He became president that day."
5.) The LIBERAL media, while many report on Russia have pointed out many times that Trump himself was not under investigation, and always caveat many stories with the level of evidence supporting them.
Hell, Even now; one of the big stories across multiple news outlets are the problems going on with Illinois; which make democrats look bad.
Compare and Contrast to Fox news, or any of the even more right wing biased websites; Fox repeatedly spikes stories that are inconvenient; and offers up false facts to support their candidate (they suggested British Intelligence tapped Trump to support his asinine accusations of hacking; and many suggested Susan Rice improperly unmasked several of the names for report sourcing; which now looks to have been a set-up by members of the administration to throw a shadow over some of the evidence being reported at the time).
I am not pretending that the Liberal Media is perfectly fair, and perfectly balanced. It is, as well all know, comprised mainly of liberal journalists, and follow a for-profit model where coverage is aimed mainly at fellow liberals; which has an effect on the tone, and nature of stories that are reported.
However, accusing the liberal media of "[Ignoring] THE STORIES MAKING DEMOCRATS LOOK BAD, OR THE STORIES MAKING REPUBLICANS LOOK GOOD!!!!!!!!"
Is so utterly false, and demonstrably false when you actually pay attention to any of the coverage; I cannot understand how you can possibly make that accusation in the first place.
No. The "Liberal Media" did not say that. CNN as an organization did not say; This was one person in CNN that made a mistake (a people do) and later corrected himself.
Bronto appears to imply that there are a significant number of mistakes and there is somehow large numbers of mistakes compared to how many there should be.
Obviously, he cannot provide any objective support and thus this accusation is effectively "pulled out of his a"
Bronto Lie Counter #13
Bronto is still pretending that his objectively false videos are not false. No. Repeatedly asserting a video is the truth does not make it the truth.
None of the video show them objectively lying in the way you assert.
I have refuted each one of your individual video's, and those refutations should speak for themselves.
I also like that you have started copying me; it's an awesome way to show that you're willing to act like a 6 year old in your replies; it shows how serious and intellectual you are.
This quote was taken out of context and deceptively cut off as described and outlines in depth by Van Jones: the context of his message meant something very different than the partial out of context quote Than how you and PV asserted it.
I bet you would like copy of Lester Holt fact checking Trump at the debate saying "stop and frisk is unconstitutional". False. It's used all across the country and is perfectly legal even according to the Supreme Court itself.
"Holt, Sept. 26: Your two — your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men."
In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that city police violated the U.S. Constitution in the way that it carried out its stop-and-frisk program, calling it “a form of racial profiling” of young black and Hispanic men.
This is the equivalent of a judge ruling that eating hamburgers is unconstitutional and being fired, and then someone using it to try and say that eating hamburgers is unconstitutional because a rogue judge somewhere said so one time long ago.
Since even many Liberals have admitted the blatant Liberal bias in the media, that makes you someone living on some other planet, or it makes you a deceptive fool.
Which ever it is, I have better thnings to do then waste my time with a Liberal denier.
I sat through 30 seconds of CBS news one night, and their lead story was how some idiot put bacon inside the Quran, and hung it on a gate at a Mosque.
CBS did what Liberal media does and interviewed a man who blamed Trump for the act.
I gurantee you CBS did not run a lead story on Trump's severed head displayed on our publicly funded College walls, with an intervue with some guy who blamed the Hate Art on the hateful Democrat Party.
That's when I switched the channel just like I'm going to do with you.
You are mistaken if you think I don't claim that there is a liberal bias in the media; quite the contrary, and I find it particularly misleading that I even stated as much in one of my other responses to you. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had simply not read my other post before making this comment.
There is a difference between the type of bias the liberal media has, and the type of bias you accuse it of.
Quite frankly, your wild accusations are neither supported by facts, or valid arguments; they appear to be mostly rants based on obscene misrepresentations, your own perception of the very same media you probably do not watch, and selective memory.
The issue is, and the grotesque hypocrisy of this all is that at their worst; the "liberal media" doesn't come as close to being as biased as many of the media outlets that are popular on the right. These frequently bury the lead and often act like state controlled media by refraining from any contrarian narrative in more ways than the liberal media ever has or will.
Now, if you cannot defend your outrageous misrepresentations, then by all means; either ban me, or ignore me.
Because quote honestly, I have no interest in talking to a republican snowflake who flips out because they cannot handle scrutiny or defend their position. If you wish to make this, or other posts into your right-wing safe space; you are within your right to do that; but I'm not going to stop calling you out when I feel it necessary.
Fox News is a right biased site. But they openly admit it. Judge Jeanine gave a full disclosure that she knew Trump personally as a friend and that she was voting for him in full disclosure. It'll be a cold day in hell before CNN does that...
is so utterly false, and demonstrably false when you actually pay attention to any of the coverage; I cannot understand how you can possibly make that accusation in the first place
I did my college thesis on liberal bias in the media. I've paid more attention than anyone. That's why I can't hold your position.
Considering that you don't seem like the type of person who reads or watches the type of media that you are complaining about, I would like to point out that what you just said is not factually accurate
You either do not watch or are brainwashed beyond measure.
Bronto is pretending I am claiming the media's coverage is okay, or unbiased. Rather than what I am doing, which is specifically arguing that FromWithins argument was factually inaccurate. Which it is.
The title of this debate is literally "... Libs believe media REPORTS the story", and that is literally the position or side that you took, so to assume that you took the side of "Libs believe media REPORTS the story" is 100% accurate. Thanks for playing.
If it's "what you believe", that means it's an opinion. Opinions are not facts, thus my opinion can't be a lie just because you have a different opinion. You lose again on basic common sense and based on your own word choice.
Got to say you have some real problems now you better get with the New York Times !
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
There is the link that shows the Left is failing on the Russia story and all they got to push are false narratives. Try but you cannot escape the truth.
You mean the "Russian Ghost" of people thinking that Trump and his campaign were aware that something was going on with Russia and worked with them for the benefit of their campaign?
We kinda caught when when Trump Jr published an email showing he was aware that something was going on with Russia and attempted to work with them for the benefit of their campaign
Ironically, the video itself, due to selective editing; obvious lack of context; and the key portions OBVIOUSLY not talking specifically about CNN's coverage, and the guy being a Health news guys, is itself "fake news". It is a manufactured narrative, trying to make CNN look bad.
In actuality, there's not a great deal of difference between CNN's reports, and what this guy says.
They were not fired for CNN making "demonstrably false" stories; they were fired for not upholding strict editorial standards (including cross checking, more than one source, etc). CNN were at pains to point out that it did not mean the story was false, and pretending that the story was "demonstrably false" is not supported.
Bronto obscene-fallacy/stupidity Counter: 1.
I'm going to start a new counter here! As your argument is not just a lie, but it's also ridiculously stupid.
If your argument is that "the media creates the stories", then according to you, then there is literally no reason for CNN to have fired them.
The idea that you feel it is coherent to argue that CNN decided that 3 reporters who were acting in the way CNN wanted them to act, should be "called out" by CNN without prompting, for not following CNN standards; and then fired for effectively doing what you say CNN wanted them to do; is laughable.
"The piece "did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," the note said."
"In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that "the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is"
Bronto has pasted two highly dubious video's, that would not support his contention even if both were true; as say anything has been created, and both are merely stating personal opinion. A personal opinion that, many people on the left actually share (and has been reported on every news outlet I am aware of): that there was probably no collusion.
They were not fired for CNN making "demonstrably false" stories; they were fired for not upholding strict editorial standards (including cross checking, more than one source, etc). CNN were at pains to point out that it did not mean the story was false, and pretending that the story was "demonstrably false" is not supported.
Bronto obscene-fallacy/stupidity Counter: 1.
I'm going to start a new counter here! As your argument is not just a lie, but it's also ridiculously stupid.
If your argument is that "the media creates the stories", then according to you, then there is literally no reason for CNN to have fired them.
The idea that you feel it is coherent to argue that CNN decided that 3 reporters who were acting in the way CNN wanted them to act, should be "called out" by CNN without prompting, for not following CNN standards; and then fired for effectively doing what you say CNN wanted them to do; is laughable."
That's odd. No one was fired for saying it was illegal to look at wikileaks. It couldn't be that a certain "news" outlet got caught up on. Naaaaa... that couldn't be it.
You are pretending as if making an honest mistake (confusion of classified with non classified information) is the same as making a dishonest mistake.
Bronto Lie counter #9.
You are also being dishonest in claiming that cnn were "caught". In reality, CNN "owned up". The two are very different, and you are forced to misrepresent one as the other because it sounds better.
I mean really; skype froze. I mean really; the idea that CNN would even have them ON in the first place if they wanted to prevent them from being heard is laughable.
No, both are selectively edited (both at the start, with the obvious omission of starting context); and at the end with the hasty cut off prior to continuation of the sentence.
The same goes for Van Jones (who clarified the context of his remarks).
This is typical behavior and MO of PV, and have gotten in trouble for it previously.
