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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Seriously... You Watch Fox News...
Day 1. So there was this lady who worked somewhere in the agricultural department. In 1984 she talked about the first white farmers that came to her for help. She at the time did not work for the government, she worked for a non-profit... Let me repeat that I know Joe and his ilk are slow SHE DID NOT EVEN WORK IN THE GOV AT THE TIME OF THE SPEACH. At any rate, now she works in the Agricultural dept. of the US gov. A far, far right wing blogger posted a speach where she seems to say she did not want to help the white farmer. Fox covered it all day long - literally go to media matters, Obama's "racist" admin got more time than the oil spill. They covered Obama hiring (even though he likely never even heard of the lady, it was mid level in the Ag dept for christsake) they covered how Obama hired this terrible racist lady more than any one other subject. The video was there. It was obvious she hates white people... okay, they fire her. The Obama administration then fires her due to what Fox reported.
Day 2. Turns out this far far right blogger edited the tape. The story the lady told was not racist at all. It was a story about learning that we are all kind of in this together and whatnot. Actually, it was sort of inspirational when one hears the tape uncut. (note in addition, it is a fact this lady's fatehr was actually killed when she was 16 by the KKK. This makes it an even more inspirational story, however, it does not need this extra fact, just a note.)
Keep in mind, Fox was the only station to "break" this news. I guess other channels just don't take any stupid shit a blogger sends them as news, whatever.
Drunk I decide to see what silly shit fox is saying... did they apologize for taking a hand in the firing of this lady? Did they apologize for not checking sources?
Fuck no, they blamed Obama for firing her... all day long... that is what they did, they blamed Obama, for listening to Fox, and firing someone they said should be fired.
Granted, I would never listen to Fox, and I assume everthing they say is edited, a lie, or a diseased hallucination of Beck's alcohol and pain killer riddled mind.
But okay, (not Obama but) whoever is in charge of the Agr. Dept fired her based on Fox "News" He should not have listened to Fox... obviously they're retarded, but this admin has a retarded habit of trying to reach across the isle even though they just bite even if you have a treat for them.
Fox News was wrong about the story... Fox blames Obama for listening to them.
So seriously, do you watch this crap? Do you do it sobber?
I do, drunk, to keep up because I need a lot of dead brain cells to keep up. By morning my brain cells are regenerated so I cannot even look at it. It just seems too dumb to me after a night's sleep, like trying to decipher dog's barking or something.
This is what Qymosobi was talking about (though god knows what his take will be on this. Maybe the whole thing was a white conspiracy.) Fox race bates. They use dumb people to push a political agenda that helps their sponsors like those "trade money for gold" cons, and they twist things. Yes, MSNBC is left, yes CNN is a bit further left than right (but in the middle, and right by world-non-US standards)
But, they don't just make shit up to feed the retarded masses. Fox has a monopoly and just making shit up.
I am truly interested what silly defense anyone can come up with on the right, I'm sure I'll need a shot after.
Have you seen MSNBC Keith Olbermann? He is the most bias news anchor. Never has opponents on the show, only left wingers from the the Post or the Times.
While I'm not going to argue that Olbermann is unbiased (he isn't) I would like to dispute your claim that he is the "most biased news anchor".
Lets break it down first:
"Most biased" and "New Anchor". Well he isn't a "News Anchor" so much as a pundit with his own political show on MSNBC. I guess though, I'm nitpicking, but lets move on.
Would you consider someone who lies about stories to be more biased then someone who is biased, but tells the truth? If not, then maybe you could make the case that Olbermann is more biased. If not then I would argue that Fox reporters are a shit load more biased, since they blatantly lie about numerous stories.
What I like most about your arguments on this subject is that you seem to just change the subject:
Let's ignore how shitty Fox's reporting is because I've found someone worse!. How could I possibly know they're worse, even if I almost never watch either network? Well, shut up! You're just a liberal so obviously you think Fox is more biased. You have examples? Lots of examples? Well then I refuse to comment and will never admit to Fox being more biased!
Ughhh...we've had this argument before. I gave you about a half dozen examples of fox, and you gave me one sorta decent example of a CNN reporter acting unprofessionally, and a video edited to make CNN look liberally biased when it wasn't. Unless you want to give me actual evidence, I'm going to call bullshit.
Fox is the most biased name in news, because the entire network is designed as a conservative propaganda machine. Other networks have issues, but they at least try to bring the news fairly. Pundits on all the networks are biased, but once again, only fox blatantly lies and rarely apologizes.
These aren't claims, these are facts, and I can give you sources from independent fact checking sites that correct any news source that gives misinformation. The fact that they point out fox more than others has nothing to do with the fact that fox is conservative but the fact that fox is full of shit most of the time.
Let me ask you this: are you even willing to discuss the evidence, or are you just going to write it off as liberal bias, even when I give you hard evidence? If it's the latter then I don't see any reason to actually argue with you about this since you have admitted that you won't change your views regardless of the evidence, however if it's the former then you are a rational person who can have his mind changed if presented with convincing enough evidence.
Now I am pretty confident in my own position, however, were you to show me convincing evidence to the contrary I would have no choice but to change my view. Why? Because I don't believe things for which there is no evidence. So if you think your right try and convince me, I just ask that you give me an equal chance to convince you. It is likely that neither of us will change our minds on the issue, but at least we can both gain a little perspective as to why the other one thinks the way he does.
Mediamatters.org is a little more credible but still questionable.
It is non profit organization with progressive research and information center dedicated to only comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Keyword is not profit as opposed to non-partisan.
"I am open to conceiving evidence with real impartial attitudes towards Fox News."
I guess that means that you are hypocritically biased as well. I guess that means that you hold your sources of information to a higher standard of impartiality than yourself. Clearly, you are telling me that you do not accept (i.e. are not "open" to) any argument from a biased source that denigrates their political opponents, no matter how supported their claims are. Let me explain:
1) foxnewsboycott.com has a picture of the misleading poll numbers. Are you saying they forged the picture? If so, is your evidence for this deception their liberal bias?
2) The daily show airs a clip of Glenn Beck running with the conservative's favorite narrative: the alleged vast conspiracy in which all _other_ networks have colluded to hiding information from America. He was shown wrong with even more clips. No matter - the Daily Show is baised; they can't be right. They are certainly lying to us. Those clips are from the day _after_ GB, not before.
3) I didn't bother reading the NYT's article
4) More evidence with video and a brilliant hyperbole on the part of Stew Beef! He demonstrates not only how biased but how misleading F&Fs;' coverage of important issues can be. Then again, he's biased. So we most definitely aren't getthin the full story here...
5) More video evidence! More irrational dismissal.
Not many people that root out misinformation on principle are left in the media. Their journalistic ethics may be second, but I agree with your sentiments. Most people out there have an agenda. That is why we should demand evidence for every claim. But you are throwing the honest baby out with the biased bathwater. We should not completely dismiss one side's claim that the other side has spread misinformation for their own agenda just because they have an agenda themselves. We should, though, apply more scrutiny. And the risk of not applying enough scrutiny to one's own side is clearly demonstrated in the Breitbart-Sherrod debacle.
You should also apply the same level of scrutiny to mainstream conservative media outlets (especially the most mainstream of them all) as you do to the, in my opinion, more responsible mainstream liberal media outlets), lest you continue to run the risk of being seen as a dishonest hypocrite.
Wait seriously? I thought you were going to give evidence or explanations about why each of my points was not a good argument, yet instead you just try and claim each source is bias? You know that just because someone is liberal doesn't mean that they can't have a point, right?
foxnewsboycott.com is hardly a reliable source since it is clearly anti Fox News.
Did you not see the screenshot? Did you even look what they had to say? Did they use liberal math to add the numbers of the poll? No, so your accusation is baseless.
The Daily Show is liberal bias and pro Obama without question.
First, you've obviously never seen the daily show, and second, do you deny that Glenn Beck was clearly wrong about what he said? If you want I'll find each piece of footage of where people showed the clip to show that Glenn Beck was lying when he said fox was the only ones who showed the video...but do my arguments not count since I'm liberal?
Another Jon Stewart video. Liberal bias
Wow, really? The Daily Show actually called the white house to ask about the nuclear summit logo...and they found out that it was based on the atom? Where does liberal bias come into play! That's just responsible journalism!
Mediamatters.org...
None of that matters! What matters is that Fox cropped a clip to make Biden look bad! Do you doubt the validity of this statement, or does it just not count because they're liberal?
If you are going to define as biased any group that criticizes fox then obviously you're going to think the sites are biased because they all criticize fox. This isn't an argument it's begging the question.
Regardless none of this matters because it's the arguments made, not who makes them that is important. Had Hitler figured out quantum mechanics it would still be just as useful, regardless of the fact that he killed Jews and was a terrible person.
You clearly see the world through heavily tinted partisan glasses and everything must fall into the liberal (bad) category or the good category. Can a liberal never make a valid point? Do you have any actual evidence that the claims are false? No? Just that the sites are liberal?
Bias only matters when it causes you to distort the facts...you know, kinda like Fox does.
I was hoping to have a real debate with you about the actual issues...clearly that was too much to ask.
If the liberal media is not out to attack Fox News, then why is Fox News Channel the number one cable news source in America for 100 consecutive months, and why aren't the Fox viewers complaining. The first nine shows are all Fox News programs.
Nobody complains except liberal media. Never heard one person other than liberals complain about how Fox News is so bias and reports lies.
I have seen the Daily Show, and Stewart is funny, yet how can they be a reliable news source when iamdavid said, The Daily Show doesn't even call themselves news.
Do you doubt the validity of this statement, or does it just not count because they're liberal?
No, maybe there is two sides to every to story. Many conservatives believe that liberal media lies as well.
Had Hitler figured out quantum mechanics it would still be just as useful, regardless of the fact that he killed Jews and was a terrible person.
Before or After the Concentration Camps. Just to be clear
You clearly see the world through heavily tinted partisan glasses and everything must fall into the liberal (bad) category or the good category.
That is entirely untrue. I am libertarian, thus by definition, I believe many things that you do with personal freedom except economic activity.
Bias only matters when it causes you to distort the facts...you know, kinda like Fox does.
I was hoping to have a real debate with you about the actual issues...clearly that was too much to ask.
I was hoping that this debate was free of partisanship as you try to point the finger at me instead of yourself. Well, I will play that game as well. You are clouded by a heavily tinted partisan glasses yourself because you believe that there is no possible way that liberal media lies. Because if I post any link to a conservative site, you will automatically deem it as incredible by its conservative view point.
1. Okay you're still missing the point. This is about lying.
2. I looked through your entire link for NewsBusters. Not a single piece of evidence of a single lie. They do spend a lot of time giving blanket descriptions of how "liberal media" lies, they do state several times "liberal media" does lie. But not a quote, stat, or single piece of video confirming this apparent liberal conspiracy... they do spend two articles singing the praises of Ann Coulter which gives me pause.
So basically, you linked a far right news website as a source, for why it's cool for Fox to cover edited tape from a two-bit blogger all day long as if it is news. Good job ._.
Oh do I love such blatent ignorance that one can find nowhere else but on the Fox commentary network. Since when are the terms Socialist, Communist, and Nazi become interchangeable. No wonder the rest of the world thinks were dumb. We are. Since when has Socialism and Communism been evil?
-
McCarthyism is alive and well, hidden in the jests and proclamations of the ignorant, much like racism.
I hear now (of course, I never give them the ratings) that Fox is condemning her for "possibly" being a Marxist on the order of Van Jones! No wonder Velsack was hasty in firing her. He was probably afraid of becoming another Van Jones!
Let me put on my impartial cap here and equivocate by saying that I am nevertheless glad that the media has this much power. I would be even more glad if I were conservative, due to recent events.
"...On July 19, FoxNews.com reported: "Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy." ... The article is no longer available on FoxNews.com but was republished on another website:"
Fox News actually took down the article instead of responsibly updating it. This was one of the first actions of their whitewashing campaign, culminating with Brett Baier (on Tuesday) claiming that Fox News didn't even cover the story! Indeed, on Monday the Factor, then Hannity, then On the Record, then on the next day Fox and Friends (the very same day of Baier's false dismissal!), the highly edited clip was played and reverse-racism was cried without even consulting Sherrod.
Bill O'Reilly even said that she should resign (watch the video for yourself on MMfa). He tapes his show early in the afternoon, I have learned, which was either during or a few hours before she resigned via blackberry on her way home Monday.
Although they didn't air the clip before she resigned, they were certainly about to do it.
All the culpable clips of the Factor, Hannity, On the Record, F&Fs;, Megyn Kelly, and Special Report are documented on MediaMatters. I suggest you watch them for yourself.
Alright alright that is a valid argument that I cannot refute. But I really only watch Glenn Beck and he defended her on his TV show. I don't know about his radio show because I don't listen to it. I commend your research.
An honest political commentator would apologize or at least rescind his/her false statements. What does Beck do instead? Why, he denies ever calling Sherrod a racist:
"Despite accusing Sherrod of Marxism and "discriminating against white farmers," Beck proclaims that he took her side"
He did qualify by saying "on this show", so I'll give him that. But he is trying to position himself against the "rush to judgment" of the administration, when he clearly was one of the people in the media who rushed to judgment! Clearly, though, his radio show would still apologize...
"Beck co-host Gray falsely suggests Beck took Sherrod's side on the radio"
Only O'Reilly has actually apologized on Fox. Baier and Beck are denying it. Hannity, Fox and Friends and Megyn Kelly are just ignoring it.
Glenn Beck is simply being opportunistic on his show in order to predictably slam the administration. He would get away with this flagrant act of whitewashing/blame-shifting if it weren't for MMfA's extensive documentation. But MMfA gets smeared every time they are mentioned on Fox. Even Baier (a supposedly impartial mediator) says he doesn't "often quote Media Matters", so I don't expect Fox viewers to browse the site, even though their research articles are the most heavily cited articles I have ever read on the Internet.
Kind of like Dan Rather right? Or maybe the left wing bloggers that spoke in a journalist forum chatting how to manipulate and get rid of a story that may hurt a certain candidate's chances at winning an election?Or the journalist writing to change the subject and call who-ever opposes their view racist?
The point is, bias aside and what side they are on aside,
Fox willfully just pulls shit out of their ass.
Fine, Olberman is left, he is definitely biased.
Pull a clip of him lying on purpose. When he get's something wrong, he's never failed to say "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
When Rachel Madow has a single number wrong in a statistic, she comes on the next day, apologizes, and corrects herself. Is she biased? Sure, but she doesn't make shit up.
Fox by comparison gets something wrong and they blame people for believing them. It's Orwellian.
The point isn't bias, the point is straight lying about stuff to push an agenda.
Here's what it would look like from the other side - I edit tape on my blog to show Carl Rove eating babies. MSNBC spends 60% of their news day covering Carl Roves insatiable appetite for babies. The RNC fires Carl Rove for eating babies. MSNBC finds out I edited the tape and Carl Rove doesn't eat babies. MSNBC points out how many babies the RNC must eat since they fired Carl Rove for eating babies... and spend all day discussing all the babies the RNC must eat since Carl Rove doesn't.
Then, don't watch Fox News if they lie. Simple as that. What you are going to do about it? What can you do about it? Nothing.
OHHH, wait you get your information from MSNBC accusing Fox for its obvious lies and bias from Maddow and Olbermann because even yourself notes that they are left bias.
All the sources of lies come from liberal bias media outlets.
... you're an idiot. I saw that on fox. One day they said the lady was an evil racist. The very next they said Obama's an evil racist for firing her. Try seeing beyond the partisan fog you're lost in.
You're an idiot because you refuse to debate the facts. You just say "uh... well... um... MSNBC!"
It's not about bias. Read the debate.
And I said in the debate, I only watch Fox when I'm really really drunk - and everything in this debate is directly from what I saw on Fox. A better question is why you and no one on Fox cannot admit when you are factual wrong?
I don't refuse facts. As I told andsoccer, I don't watch Fox News and not even when I am drunk, but the thing is all news is propaganda. You just have a severe liberal bias against anything Fox News reports.
Again, why do you watch even you're really drunk if it is so abhorrent.
Fox News reports the news for what their viewers want to hear and MSNBC reports the news the same.
"why do you watch even you're really drunk if it is so abhorrent."
Because when you don't have your moral inhibitions to guide you (journalistic standards, et al.), those hot "attorneys" and highly-critical pundits are extremely entertaining, even when you disagree with them.
I watch it so I can try to figure out why there are so many crazy people in the US. Then I see it, and I see them making up stuff and a love affair with the destruction of the Union simply because the guy in power isn't a rich white guy, and how they exaggerate to ridiculous proportion even when they are not lying, and I say "Okay, I get it, they watch fox so they're living in an alternate universe."
And I only do it when I'm drunk because I don't care as much when I'm drunk, and I can appreciate the macabre humor of it all... but then I get sober and it annoys me again ><
The are crazy; a few weeks ago the aired a live suicide. News is suppose to be Unbiased and they clearly favor one politician. The way that they treat guests on their show for not agreeing with them is nuts. Ben stein was on there talking about taxing the rich, he even made a joke about not being able to come back on the show.
