The Instigator
sceder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

FOX News isn't reliable news anymore

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,103 times Debate No: 66112
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

sceder

Pro

Fox news isn't really news.

Definition:

News: n. newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events.

Sure, they cover news every now and then, but most of it now is just the opinions from Right-wingers and them trying to convince the viewers that Obama is evil in every single way possible.
WillRiley

Con

Your argument contradicts itself. Your first sentence and resolution: Fox News isn't really news.
However, you yourself admit that they cover news. Then it is really news isn't it? Sure, they have Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. but the majority of the day is actual news. Primetime is mostly opinionated people, but the rest of the day is mostly actual reporting. Also, even if they put their own personal spin on it, the news on those primetime shows still fits your definition of news.
Debate Round No. 1
sceder

Pro

Ok, there is news. I say that in the resolved up there. The problem is that it isn't reliable. Often times, anyone who watches this with a straight, unbiassed mind, you see that all they are doing are attacking on the "weak" points of anything liberal. They don't care if it makes sense, they just go with their gut and sometimes make stuff up. They present what happened for a minute or two, then have a whole bunch of angry people rant about how "well" someone else could do it and yadda yadda yadda. You don't get the actual news; it's constantly twist. Here are a couple of links. I'll hold you accountable for watching all of these.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
and more if you want to:
https://www.youtube.com...
WillRiley

Con

I would like to say that while your video's appear to bring up valid points, they also seem to be extremely biased, which is interesting because that is the very thing you accused Fox News of. Also, you expect to watch Fox as someone who is unbiased, but I see from your profile you are Liberal in favor of Obama. Have you ever considered that maybe Obama isn't as good at you thought?
Also, according to your resolution, "Fox News isn't reliable news anymore", you will also have to prove that it was at some time reliable, if it is true that it is now not reliable. For example, Bill O'Reilly, who is a main topic of your videos, has been with Fox News since the very start.

However, you will also have to prove, using unbiased sources, that Fox News is unreliable. However, I believe that Fox is reliable because their News and Commentary can be taken separately. The vast majority of times you can tell where the commentary is and where the news is. You can choose whether to believe the commentary, but the news is facts.
Furthermore, a spin being put on the news is almost unavoidable.

To show further how Fox is devoted to fair reporting, read this-
"The showdown came hours before air time when John Moody, Fox's vice president for news, told Drudge he could not show a National Enquirer photo of a 21-week-old fetus. Drudge, an ardent opponent of abortion, wanted to brandish the picture of a tiny hand reaching out from the womb to dramatize a baby's development at that stage. But Moody decided that would be misleading because the tabloid photo dealt not with abortion but with an emergency operation on the fetus for spina bifida." [1]
This is Fox News standing up against a Conservative viewpoint in order to be fair and unbiased.
Back to you Con

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sceder

Pro

I'll agree with you that the maker of these videos does have some other videos that are bias and is against what Fox is for, but he is exposing Fox's misleading and bias news reports. Even if the video is bias, it isn't considered news. I am in favor of Obama and the Democrats, but the voters of this debate are the ones to look at the videos without bias. To the voters, when you are watching them, please put aside your own personal bias when you watch the video. To answer your question, yes. I have considered Obama isn't all that great. I'm not for abortion, and he hasn't done a good job of spread his message. Although it's hard to when you have Fox News constantly and desperately trying to attack Obama. I have a question for you though. Have you considered that Obama isn't the cause of all your problems or that he isn't bad?
To the part about how it use to be reliable, around it's founding, fox had been bias then still, it's just that they weren't as bias and they were truthful more often.

I put a video down below It talks about the guy that directed Outfoxed, a movie that showed flaws in Fox News. There is a part in which the director is handed an envelop. There are memos that go around Fox that tell the reporters to use certain words or focus on certain things to make it they way they want it. The vast majority of time you can tell when Fox is trying to report it as if to blame someone or to make someone look good. It becomes hard to differentiate news from bias when there is bias in news. Then within the news reports, they often throw in incorrect facts to throw of the viewer, as seen in the earlier videos.

Ok, you found a few times they weren't bias, Though, this is rare on Fox. This is why it isn't reliable anymore. They don't show this stuff as often.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2i_HH54BPk
WillRiley

Con

"Have you considered that Obama isn't the cause of all your problems or that he isn't bad?"
In fact, I am a Libertarian, not a Conservative, but I live in a strongly Conservative household. I commonly find myself defending Obama. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Fox stands for (I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, for instance) but that doesn't mean you can write it off as being in unreliable source of news. There is a time for commentary, and a time for reporting. You can tell when one ends and the other one starts. Sure, they have had reporting mistakes, but who hasn't?
Though they report with a slant, it is hard to have completely unbiased news.
You can find plenty of bias on the other news networks as well, it just you wouldn't notice as much because the bias is in your favor. I am not attacking you, just stating a fact. I know, because I used to be a flat out Conservative Republican and I saw no problems with Fox. As I became I Libertarian (Keeping my Republican status because of Ron Paul mainly, and the fact that Third Parties have almost no traction in the United States) I began to realize that Fox news wasn't as great as I thought it was.

Finally my actual point-
It is very difficult to report with no slant. People form opinions, its only natural. Fox News gets flak for being biased, which it probably is, but no more biased than all of the other networks. Fox just gets more because its bias is to the right, not the left.
Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
sceder

Pro

sceder forfeited this round.
WillRiley

Con

Though my opponent was late in responding to the debate, they have posted an argument in the comments. This is what I will be responding to.
Response
"I never said necessarily said that other news networks (MSNBC) aren't bias, or isn't reliable news source. To win, all I need to do is prove Fox News is."

No, you didn't, but you did say that Fox News was not a reliable source of news. This opens the door for me to point out that the kind of bias on Fox is widespread across all news networks. NBC, which is usually viewed as more credible than MSNBC and Fox, flat out edited George Zimmerman for political reasons. [1]
Also, you have to do more than prove that Fox is biased to show that it is not a credible source of news.

Conclusion
During the course of this debate, I believe I have shown that Fox, while biased, is still a credible source of information, especially when considering the biases of other networks. I have also disproven what appeared to be my opponent's resolution-
"Fox news isn't really news."
Essentially, my opponent conceded when they said this-
"Ok, there is news."

For all of these reasons, please vote Con.

[1] http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mentalist 2 years ago
mentalist
I am unable to formally vote...but I vote for sceder because ...One of the most relied upon tactics of the news is omission. It is not a matter if what they report is reliable as much as it is a question of if they left out certain relevant information to avoid presenting a well rounded segment and hinder the audience from forming a knowledgeable opinion.
Posted by mentalist 2 years ago
mentalist
I think it can be argued that all news has historically been used as propaganda. One will always have to use independent thought to filter through the biases of those who document and present it.
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 2 years ago
CooCooClockofDoom
Fox News was reliable before?
Posted by sceder 2 years ago
sceder
Crud, I was about to post it. Here is my argument, sorry.

I never said necessarily said that other news networks (MSNBC) aren't bias, or isn't reliable news source. To win, all I need to do is prove Fox News is. I do recognize that MSNBC is bias, but that isn't justification for Fox to be. Fox is unreliable now because, especially quite recently, it has been showing support for anyone that opposes the Democratic Party. Therefore, they often twist the story to fit what they think. Thank you Con for being a worthy opponent and for this debate.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
My apologies, I accidentally referred to Pro as Con in the last round.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Yes, FOX news and MSNBC are more opinionated rather than delivering the news, however it is very hard to deliver the news without "slanting" it a bit.
Posted by HalfAnachronism 2 years ago
HalfAnachronism
I concur. FOX is extremely biased and instead of reporting what's going on in the world, they report their opinions on it. They're way too right-wing, and in my opinion news sources shouldn't be right-wing or left-wing, they should just tell it like it is.
Posted by tonyrobinson 2 years ago
tonyrobinson
Yeah you would be Pro in this debate. You lost the debate before you could even get started.
Posted by Khaos_Mage 2 years ago
Khaos_Mage
Wouldn't you be pro, then?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tonyrobinson 2 years ago
tonyrobinson
scederWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not have a good argument. The sources Pro used showed extreme bias, which is his claim against Fox, he failed to see the irony.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
scederWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
scederWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Generally reliable? IMO probably not... On to the debate, firstly the resolution is "FOX News isn't reliable news anymore" regardless of the claims made, or partial concessions. This resolution holds that Fox News was apparently at some time reliable news (which was never proven... but I'll be charitable and call that half the resolution a presumption). However instead of making a case, Pro Gish Galloped random video links not bothering to relate them to his argument. This left Con's rebuttals firmly in place. "they don't show this stuff as often" does seem to be a concession, because not being reliable as often, isn't the same as being generally unreliable.