CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
34
You bet! Absolutely!
Debate Score:71
Arguments:29
Total Votes:121
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 You bet! (14)
 
 Absolutely! (15)

Debate Creator

beevbo(295) pic



Is Fox News fair and balanced?

You bet!

Side Score: 37
VS.

Absolutely!

Side Score: 34
1 point

This debate is so good I terrorist fist bumped myself!

Side: You bet!
4 points

Obama's baby mama shouldn't terrorist fist jab black, Muslim men and we need Fox News to tell us when this happens.

Side: You bet!
3 points

Wait a minute,

"The comment was quickly removed from public view and, despite a half-hearted apology, so was Hill: Fox News cancelled her show."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/jun/14/5

Side: Absolutely!
1 point

HAH! Yeah, Olbermann beat O'Reilly -- in a week when O'Reilly stayed at home two nights. His show wasn't on during the last primary night on Tuesday and he took Friday off. Laura Ingraham hosted on that night. So, Olbermann beats O'Reilly when O'Reilly isn't on the air. Nope, that doesn't interest me at all.

Side: You bet!
1 point

it's amazing on how the only news network that actually provides equal airtime for both sides of an argument (proven by those excellence in journalism assholes) are far right nuts.

consider two things: the far left sites that post something about fox news (what bill o'reilly or geraldo rivera said) is inaccurate, almost as if they never even watched the program.

and, there are more left leaning people in this country than right leaning, yet, fox news dominates cable news. i mean, obliterates the competition.

Side: You bet!
-1 points

Two university studies have found Fox News to be the most fair and balanced of ALL the broadcast news outlets, not just cable. The Clinton campaign remarked that Fox News had been fairer to Hillary than any other media outlet. As a journalist of 35 years, I can state that I have seen no other media outlet that tries to be as fair as Fox News. Of course, in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il, etc. leftists HATE any message that conflicts with theirs. Their brains are all hard-wired to despise anyone to the right of Che Guevara. And, of course, the proof is in the ratings. Fox News has been the number one cable news channel for about 78 weeks, while its flagship program, The O'Reilly Factor has been number one for over 90 weeks. People are not stupid. They will find the truth, no matter how much smoke you blow their way.

Side: You bet!
xaeon(1093) Disputed
3 points

Well, there you have it folks. Two university students. Definitive proof. Have you ever watched a single second of the BBC? THAT is what being fair and balanced is all about. I've caught Fox news (I'm in the UK, so it's pretty hard to catch) now and again, and the bias to the right is plainly evident, even to someone from the UK.

Being the most watched doesn't make it the best. And making comments like "leftists HATE any message that conflicts with theirs. Their brains are all hard-wired to despise anyone to the right of Che Guevara" really does nothing for your argument regarding biased journalism. Jeez.

Side: Absolutely!
beevbo(295) Disputed
2 points

" . . . in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il, etc. leftists HATE any message that conflicts with theirs. Their brains are all hard-wired to despise anyone to the right of Che Guevara."

A journalist of 35 years, eh? Sure sounds like your career has been as fair and balanced as Fox News. In fact that post was so pro-Fox News I almost suspect that LoneRanger here is, in fact, Rupert Murdock himself.

It might interest you to know that Keith Olbermann has finally beat O'Reilly in ratings. A changing of the guard, perhaps? Something for all us Che Guevara wanna-be's to celebrate about.

Supporting Evidence: Olbermann beats O'Reilly (www.huffingtonpost.com)
Side: Absolutely!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

you take one time as a reason to gloat? msnbc is in the gutter still with ratings. they're virtually unwatched. O'reilly still dominates cable news, despite those couple of shows.

the reason why it's the most watched is because even though more americans lean left than right they actually see the unbias in fox news. what... because of people like sean hannity and brit humes you're gonna say "see, they're biased". i never knew that equal airtime meant right wing biased.

although, i did used to think like you guys until i actually started watching Fox News.

Side: You bet!
-4 points
3 points

Sorry, we're dropping this debate to make room for our spring break coverage.

Side: Absolutely!
2 points

Fair and balanced on the far far right, ABSOLUTELY!

Side: Absolutely!
2 points

There are no words there... I can't read it, there are no words there!! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, FAR RIGHT?!1!

Side: Absolutely!
2 points

ino huh!

Fuckin thing SUCKS!

Side: Absolutely!

You missed at least three more "far" notations. That's why they call it Faux News!

Side: Only on the RIGHT
1 point

Well They Are EXTREMELY rto the right but now MSNBC is EXTREMELY to the Left. So they Balance each other. I am a liberal democrat nad I sometimes have trouble watching Keith Olberman even though I mostly agree with him...I just loathe obvious bias.

Side: Absolutely!
beevbo(295) Disputed
1 point

The thing I notice about Olbermann is that there seems to be a lot more fact finding going on as compared to a show like the O'Reilly factor, which mainly consists of Bill O'Reilly yelling over top of his guests . . . particularly when they have a good point.

On the other hand, Olbermann doesn't really ever debate with anyone. Most, or all of his guest are just people that already agree with him.

It's worth asking the question, however, which pundit would you trust to be more fair? Olbermann or the comparable O'Reilly?

Side: You bet!
1 point

Hmmm, they post the words "fair and balanced" as their tagline. THEREFORE IT MUST BE FAIR AND BALANCED!

Every time I flip to that channel, I either see:

A news reporter who reports basically the same crap that the next channel got from a newssource or bloomberg, except they can't go 2 lines without injecting their personal opinion into it. They've even gone so far as to obfuscate some facts, not just rounding numbers off or twisting the sentence around, but even refusing to report some issues.

Unacceptable pundits. This doesn't excuse the left, as even Chris Matthews has a tendency to overtalk his guests. I turned the television on to find Bill O'Reilly spouting off during the legal debates over marriage. And because a group of gay protesters have finally had enough of being subjugated under the holds of religious doctrine, they protested. What was plastered on his screen? Gay Liberal Fascism. Gays are not violent, and they have never even organized except for one candy-filled parade. Oooooo, scary! These pundits take one look at a story, and spout outlandish personal objections to it, and they expect to be FAIR and BALANCED? They don't even know how to address foreign ideologies without reverting to charged political terminologies, like they're intelligent or something. Without it, they'd basically be saying "poopy-head".

Then there are programs like Red Eye. I need not even object to that, I honestly believe that these people are on the air solely for their ratings and blunt controversy. That should solve the dilemma if anything, about being such a popular network, if that statement is even true.

It's enough that they squander their duties to be honest and objective. It's another thing that this channel is filled with Hannady, Nancy Grace, O'Reilly, and virtually any charismatic far-right motherfucker that can behave himself long enough to be featured on their shows.

Take a look at this douchebag... *facepalm*
Side: Absolutely!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

1. Nancy Grace is on CNN and not even far-right. good job at being wrong though.

2. Americans always make fun of Canadians, not just Fox News.

3. Everyone in the world talks shit about America... what, Americans can't talk shit about another country now? This is what we do, talk shit about eachother.

4. Greg Gutfeld (Red Eye host) actually apologized on the show right after when he realized what the whole story was about. He even pointed out how he respects any allies towards America and he realizes how he crossed the line.

5. Bill Shulz (the one who actually called Canadians dumb) is a Liberal Democrat. Greg Gutfeld is more like a Libertarian Republican, not even Conservative. and the second guy who talked is a major activist for pot smoking. certainly not Conservative.

So all this had hardly anything to do with Conservatives on Fox News.

6. O'Reilly never said ALL gays were fascists. Just the ones who were militant (invading churches, yelling into old woman's faces, etc.). In fact, O'Reilly doesn't even care on the gay marriage debate. He refuses to vote on it. He says it's up to the American people.

7. What about liberal pundits on Fox News such as Dr. Lamont Hill who seems to always blame problems with blacks on the whites. Or Ellis Hennican who actually wants more sanctuary cities. How about the leader of the Black Panther Party who has been on Fox News quite a few times? Or Reverend Al Sharpton who's a regular on the O'Reilly Factor. How about Geraldo Rivera on Geraldo at Large? Or how about the Code Pink leader who is constantly on Fox News? Hillary Clinton actually said that her best interview was with O'Reilly (and it was also her toughest). Rosie O'Donnel used to actually like Bill O'Reilly back when he interviewed her. But now, of course, she's gone insane. and John Kerry and O'Reilly actually get a long in interviews since they're both environmentalists. And Bill Maher is a regular on the O'Reilly Factor as well (although, Real Time has cut back on their debates).

The fact is, you're going by headlines and far left website snippets in order to form your opinion on Fox News. I used to think the same way, trust me. but when i actually started watching it, i realized that it really was Fair and Balanced. and O'Reilly, as much as I disagree with him, really does give all opponents a fair shot.

Side: You bet!
p6667(66) Disputed
1 point

Notice you make the assumption that I support left leaning programs.

I really think the system of information we have would be a hell of a lot better if we didn't have wackjob pundits and people who have to interpret already meek clips of info for the people like they're too stupid to know what to do with it.

I don't really care about their apologies, they need to conduct themselves before they put on a suit and assume a figure of authority. They lash out in public, apologize in private. So what, are they just constantly kidding around? You know that right-leaners are going to accept their ridicules and demagoguery and rally over this crap, and yet you're telling me that they don't really feel what they say on TV. Like a news program is a place to dump our frustrations. Gay's are not fascists, obviously, and yet they print this on the bottom of the screen because for the first time in a long time they struck out over their rights being taken away! I don't see them saying a word about God Hates Fags.

Yes countries talk shit about us. After Bush, just as ONE example, it's easy to understand. Does that make the standard? That we'll give regular joe Gutfeld his own show so he can toss careless comments about? Somebody throws mud, we throw mud back?

Yes, oops, my bad. Nancy is on CNN, I mis-structured my list. But she is clearly far-right.

As for the original question of "fair and balanced", you're stopping at the vague assumption that 'equal' (if that) airtime means fair and balanced. That's not it at all. They bring loonies like the Black Panthers on so they can cut them down, or talk over them like Bill O'Reilly does.

Hmmm, let's agree with our friends and cut down our enemies. That's equal airtime! That's fair and balanced!

Side: Absolutely!
0 points

pissed myself when i saw the debate answers.

Side: Absolutely!
-5 points
beevbo(295) Disputed
2 points

AAAAh hahahahahahahahahaah!!!!!! Hahaha hahaha!!!! . . . . . . . . Pfffft!!! BAH hahahahahaahhahaaahaha!!!!

Side: You bet!
2 points

Yeah, No.

I second Beevbo.

Side: You bet!
xaeon(1093) Disputed
2 points

WOOOO. Please don't compare ANY American news show with the BBC. The BBC is about as fair and unbiased as you are EVER going to get for a news organisation. Comments about "terrorist fist pumps" and Obama plaigerising speeches (seriously, were they actually joking us around with that?) are certainly NOT fair and balanced.

Side: You bet!