The Instigator
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Caramel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of "news."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2010 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,214 times Debate No: 13247
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)

 

RoyLatham

Con

Pro made the claim of the resolution in comments on another Fox News debate. http://www.debate.org... This debate provides Pro an opportunity to attempt to prove his claim. Pro must prove that Fox News is vicious, nasty, and manipulative, and that Fox worse in these regards than any other significant news outlet ever to arise in the United States. I will argue the Con position.

The context of Pro's claim did not suggest any special terminology, so dictionary definitions of the key words in the resolution apply.

Each side will have three rounds of arguments, beginning with Pro. The last round will be a "pass" by Pro to keep the space even.
Caramel

Pro

As Roy mentioned, this statement was made in the context provided by the link, and any semantical degradation from our exchanges should be anchored to that discussion.

FOx is guilty of - (sorry for the organization, there is a fair amount of overlap in here)

1. lying. How can one justify the commentary in this link? {} The news anchor says that "marijuana WILL KILL you." Anti-drug sentiment is a hardy component of conservative principles. How do I know this? Easy; look at Fox news and conservative radio. They all agree on it. If you ask Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Palin, Savage, Levin, Reagan... You're not going to get any more than one answer. Roy is going to attempt to differentiate the more problematic elements (i.e., O'Reilly) from main-stream FOX in an effort to say FOX has both an entertainment and a news portion. But this is just part of the manipulation. How is your average Joe supposed to know the difference? Does FOX come on and say "...and now, for entertainment purposes only... the views expressed herein do not represent FOX news or its affiliates..."? Of course not. Fox wishes to manipulate the viewer into thinking these figures are legitimate. The fact that all these figures have practically the exact thing to say on all political issues is key that they are all working in tandem,

2. pushing a narrow agenda under the guise of a "fair and balanced" news source. Who is worse than FOX? Roy can point to Olberman and Matthews and say "they do it too," but MSNBC and CNN haven't actually gone out and hired active politicians like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin to help them report. Furthermore, FOX's lineup is hardcore partisan and cannot be compared to ANYTHING else. O'Reilly, Levin, Hannity, Beck, Palin... How could any other station compete with this partisanship?

The problem I have with FOX is that it manipulates the people into thinking it is an objective news source when it clearly is not. FOX's existence depends on coercion and manipulation, and it has always been that way. Consider this article about how FOX intervened in Nazi Germany during the 1930ss to help get Hitler elected (http://tarpley.net...). This is admittedly just a "website" but the paper that is written is well sourced.

FOX has and always will be simply an instrument of coercion by right-wing xenophobes. Right-wingers by nature need coercion to exist, because their policies and ideas do not yield equity for the masses - only the ones already in a position of wealth. FOX and its followers attack "mainstream media" because mainstream media does not purport right-wing propaganda. Evolution, for example, is problematic for right-wingers because it loostens Christianity's hold on Americans; a religion that holds many people in firm check on the right side of the aisle. RIght-wingers therefore put forth that reporting on evolution and accepting it as fact is simply the left-wing stance on the issue, in which the main-stream media purports unjustifiably.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Con

I'm glad that Pro has attempted to defend his comments. That's what a debate site is for.

Here are the relevant definitions:

nasty: Vicious; offensively ill-tempered; insultingly mean; spiteful; as, a nasty disposition.

vicious: Addicted to vice; corrupt in principles or conduct; depraved; wicked; as, vicious children; vicious examples; vicious conduct.

manipulative: Prone to attempt to influence others by devious or subtle psychological means, in order to induce them to do what one wants.

All definitions are from http://www.dictionary.net.... Pro must therefore prove that Fox News does all of these things, and does so characteristically. In his opening round, Pro offered no evidence of Fox being "offensively ill-tempered" or being being "addicted to vice, depraved." Fox certainly presents opinions in an attempt to convince people of various things, but Pro has shown none of the subtle psychology involved that characterizes manipulation.

1. Pro argues that Fox lied in a news story about marijuana. A lie is "A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth ..." http://www.dictionary.net... However, what Pro argued was that the DEA officer who said that the new marijuana could kill was wrong. I agree, the DEA guy was wrong. However, there is no evidence that Fox knew he was wrong, nor did Fox assert that what the DEA guy said was true. There is not even evidence that the DEA guy knew it was not true. Fox didn't lie, they accurately reported a dramatic statement from a DEA guy.

All news media thrive on reporting bold statements from people in authority. For example, Fox, and everyone else, reported Congressman Alan Grayson's claim that "If you get sick, Republican's want you to die quickly." Fox reporting it accurately does not constitute endorsement of Grayson's opinion.

Should Fox have researched the subject and said that the DEA statement was probably not true? I think they should have. However, that's a relatively minor slip. If failure to confirm stories is claimed to prove the resolution then the New York Times is far worse than Fox. The Times falsely reported, based upon an unconfirmed anonymous source that John McCain was having an affair. http://newsbusters.org... The Times also ran fifty front page stories that Abu Ghraib would be proved to have been government policy. The allegations were false. What the Times did had an impact on national elections, and probably, in the case of Abu Ghraib, fueled extremists killing Americans. The story on marijuana had no conceivable national impact; neither Party favors legalization.

In don't think sloppy reporting rises to the level of "nasty, vicious, and manipulative," but if it does then the New York Times is worse than Fox News.

2. Pro points to Fox as aiding Hitler. The context of the debate, and my explicit statement of the debate, makes it clear that we are discussing Fox News, not the 1930s Fox movie studios. The Fox News parent company, News Corporation, bought the film library and the name from the Fox movie company. The notion that moral culpability comes with an asset purchase is illogical. Guilt is not purchased.

Fox does not use Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich to report. They give opinions and analysis, and everyone knows that. That they are well-known from previous political experience makes it clear that they are giving opinions rather than acting as reporters. CNN recently hired ex-governor Eliot Spitzer to do analysis. I don't think anyone would believe he is providing cold objectivity any more than anyone would think Palin or Gingrich are reporters. All are known to be opinionated political types. Possible manipulation comes from people like Bill Moyers, who makes pseudo-documentaries on PBS that try to sell leftist ideology as fact. PBS is by far the worst in that regard. Neither Hannity nor Beck nor Maddow nor Olbermann are likely to be mistaken as reporters because they are so obviously opinionated.

Pro makes other unsupported assertions about Fox. All are false.

3. What, in fact, is the most vicious, nasty, and manipulative news source to arise in the history of the United States? My first candidate is the scurrilous press than appeared soon after the passing of the Bill of Rights. At that time, some publishers felt free to create libelous stories, and even when short of libel, were strictly partisan.

"The no holds barred style of early journalism, much of it libelous by modern standards, reflected the rough and tumble political life of the republic as rival factions jostled for power." http://www.historicpages.com...

For example:

"Noah Webster, strapped for money accepted an offer in late 1793 from Alexander Hamilton of $1500 to move to New York City and edit a Federalist newspaper. ... He edited it for four years writing the equivalent of 20 volumes of articles and editorials. He also published the semi-weekly publication, The Herald, A Gazette for the country (later known as The New York Spectator). As a partisan he soon was denounced by the Jeffersonian Republicans as "a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot", "an incurable lunatic", and "a deceitful newsmonger … Pedagogue and Quack." Fellow Federalist Cobbett labeled him "a traitor to the cause of Federalism", calling him "a toad in the service of sans-cullottism", "a prostitute wretch", "a great fool, and a barefaced liar", "a spiteful viper", and "a maniacal pedant." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps some of Webster's writing was true and perhaps not. However, there is no question of it being nasty, vicious, and manipulative.

"The American Aurora" was another paper of that era in the same vain. The Aurora pushed "that George Washington was not the "Father of Our Country," but rather, an incompetent general who won the war due only to Benjamin Franklin's assistance in France; that John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were monarchists with an evil agenda; and and that Adams, in particular, had a vengeful jealousy of Franklin intense enough to affect his better judgment and reason." http://www.h-net.org...

4. There is perhaps something worse. "For young people, however, the internet now rivals television as a main source of national and international news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online; an identical percentage cites television." http://people-press.org...

An article on the progressive website salon.com summarized: "The protective force field of anonymity -- or pseudonymity -- brings out the worst in some people. They say things they would never say in the presence of flesh-and-blood human beings. You see this phenomenon all over the Internet, including Salon, which, despite having some of the smartest and most articulate commenters on the Web, has also attracted its fair share of vitriol." http://www.salon.com...

The web is the newest thing in news, and it meets the resolution in every respect. It's nasty, vicious, and manipulative in spades.

5. Pro offered only the marijuana story and 1930s Fox films story as evidence. He should present impartial statistical evidence. A scientific study was done by UCLA, and they found Fox to be the fourth most centrist of twenty media outlets. http://tinyurl.com... That studied news reporting; opinion is under no obligation to be balanced. The NY Times editorial page is skewed way left; that's not a problem either.

Pro has offered no basis for generalization in support of the resolution. His two examples were bogus.

The resolution is negated.
Caramel

Pro

"there is no evidence that Fox knew he was wrong, nor did Fox assert that what the DEA guy said was true. There is not even evidence that the DEA guy knew it was not true."

Your paragraph is as brazenly manipulative as FOX News. No evidence they knew he was wrong? There has never been a single shred of evidence to show marijuana is any more dangerous than coffee yet they chose to emphasize that point emphatically. I would ask those of you reading this, who may or may not have tried smoking weed before, what it would do to your perception of the plant if you turned on the evening news and a news anchor was telling you "it WILL KILL you." Would it manipulate your stance on drug laws? Roy is going to try and convince you now that they never "knew he was wrong..." A news stations job is to know when someone is wrong; why else would they be reporting the news? Anyone who has read even the slightest amount in to the plant knows it is absolutely benign; a news station reporting that marijuana will kill you is similar to reporting that attending Sunday mass "will KILL YOU." Do you disagree with that analogy Roy?

"Fox didn't lie, they accurately reported a dramatic statement from a DEA guy."

It is downright shameful to suggest to anyone watching that newscast that the anchor isn't clearly trying to make a concerted point with that statement. This isn't a coincidence, this isn't out of ignorance, and this certainly isn't out of incompetence - it is actually quite the opposite as it is a result of a concerted effort to reinforce drug laws which neocons can feel slipping as pro-marijuana legislation slowly takes hold.

"All news media thrive on reporting bold statements from people in authority."

But what is their intent? You are assuming that they operate in a vacuum of partisanship if you would say they simply did it for sensationalism. FOX consistently portrays a conservative standpoint, and therefore any conservative standpoint they incidentally happen to report should be assumed to be biased first and only assumed otherwise if there is very good reason... Would this not be prudent?

New York Times/Affair

This is not a scientifically proven lie, it is gossip. I can prove marijuana is not deadly... Can you prove McCain didn't have an affair? Now I'm not going to play the ignorance card and say it was coincidence that they reported that; they reported it because they had a very specific intention - to smear John McCain. You, however, ARE playing the ignorance card and you're claiming FOX's slip was simply a failure to "research the subject." Your own conservative bias is starting to show through the debate now as you justify FOX's actions by trying to extend your ignorance over the voters and myself like a cloak. If FOX reported that coffee "WILL KILL you" we wouldn't be having this conversation, do you know why? Because FOX is so good at getting propaganda like this out that they actually can do it without turning heads! You therefore are operating on a slippery slope if you defend FOX's actions here, because propaganda like FOX's is the only reason why there would be anyone who believes marijuana is deadly in the first place.

Abu Ghraib

I won't follow suit and insult your intelligence by saying NYT isn't reporting liberal bias. It is. The question this debate concerns is who is the worst. FOX has a much bigger audience than the NYT and is much more flagrantly biased. FOX employs unparalleled zeal in its bias whereas with the NYT it is much more subtle and even incidental.

FOX's Nazi propaganda

"Guilt cannot be purchased?" That is outright wrong. If I steal a bike out of your neighbor's yard and sell it to you for an extremely low price then you are definitely purchasing some of the guilt of the action. FOX's questionable origins are relevant at least to the point of showing the pattern which is clearly present in its activities - manipulative "news."

"[Palin and Gingrich only] give opinions and analysis," and therefore are not reporting.

Sure, and the Yanks only use A-Rod to hit home-runs; they do not use him as a baseball player. The fact that they are well-known doesn't change the fact that FOX is exercising a narrow political agenda while it reports news; there is no way to use personalities like Palin and Beck and remain objective. If CNN hired one themselves they are wrong, but they don't do it in the magnitude that FOX does, that's for sure. I would need an example of the Moyers "psuedo-documentary" to analyze for example.

Con gives some way out of context examples of ancient newspapers from the 1700s that, in my opinion, don't shake up to the early history of FOX anyway. It may not have called itself news but issuing propaganda is a news activity, and getting Nazis elected was far worse than anything Naoh Webster accomplished. Furthermore, FOX's longevity and incredible audience ought to be taken into account; if one manipulates many more individuals then they could be considered "more manipulative," for example.

The Web

Criticizing "the web" in general and comparing it to FOX is plain ridiculous. Fundamentally speaking, we are now comparing one firm to an entire medium. This is a very unfair comparison. Secondly, FOX has internet influence so how do you differentiate it in the comparison? This seems like more manipulation here... You're saying FOX's reputation just gets lost in the chorus of bloggers and websites, and that they should all just be added up (apparently without participation from FOX) and weighed against FOX, thus justifying how bad FOX is? Weak...

Con complains that I have not presented enough pieces of evidence to make my case... This is intentional. There are floods of articles and papers denouncing FOX News, and I could line my walls and ceilings with them if I wanted to. I'd rather not dilute the debate with a bunch of mudslinging which you are just going to deflect onto every other news source anyway, and frankly I think your comment about FOX beating out 16 other news stations in centricity is more hilarious than it is damning to my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Con

Pro has produced only two accusations against Fox in support of his resolution that "FOX is the most vicious, nasty, manipulative thing ever to arise in the US in terms of 'news.' " The resolution is extraordinarily broad, encompassing more than two hundred years of the history of the United States, yet he offers only two isolated accusations. Even if true, they would not prove that Fox News is characteristically "vicious, nasty, manipulative" as the resolution demands. As it turns out, the marijuana example is just, at worst, a case of sloppy reporting. The other is a spurious claim that Fox News, founded in 1996, is responsible for propaganda made by the Fox movie organization in the 1930s.

1. The marijuana story

Pro asks, "A news stations job is to know when someone is wrong; why else would they be reporting the news?" They report the news to make the viewer aware of opinions that differ. We do not want news organizations that decide for us whether Democrats or Republicans are right about some issue, and based on the decision of who is right fail to report the other side. News organizations are especially interested in controversial statements from presumed experts or authorities. So if a DEA agent, presumed to be knowledgeable, says that the new form of marijuana can kill you, that is a news story. Pro seems to agree that the claim is extraordinary, which makes it all the more newsworthy.

Pro says, "a news station reporting that marijuana will kill you is similar to reporting that attending Sunday mass "will KILL YOU." Do you disagree with that analogy Roy?" To make the analogy complete, it would have to be something like, "Catholic bishop says Sunday Mass will kill you." The bishop would be presumed knowledgeable about such things, so that would elevate it to being a news story. Moreover, if Fox, or any other news organization, reported "Catholic bishop says Sunday Mass will kill you." it wouldn't be mean, nasty, or manipulative. It would be sensationalism, for sure, and if presented without an opposing viewpoint it would be sloppy reporting.

Pro says, "It is downright shameful to suggest to anyone watching that newscast that the anchor isn't clearly trying to make a concerted point with that statement." That doesn't contradict what I said, which was that newscast was accurate. Pro makes a separate point, that the newscaster appeared to believe the DEA agent in what the agent claimed. I agree that the reporter seemed to believe it. However, it would only be mean, nasty, and manipulative if the reporter doubted what the agent said but reported it convincingly anyway. There is no evidence that the reporter doubted the DEA agent.

Pro seems to claim that the reporter, or anyone else, could have simply asked a stoned slacker friend if the DEA agent was correct, and thereby found out that it wasn't true. That is not a good argument, because the report was on marijuana grown under special conditions that was claimed to be substantially more potent than what was common. Besides, maybe the reporter didn't have any stoned slacker friends. Nonetheless, Fox has a research staff that should have checked the DEA claim, and found data that showed the DEA claim to be doubtful. The should have then acknowledged doubts about the DEA claim. Not doing so was sloppy.

2. Comparison to NY Times

a. Pro grants that the NY Times deliberately smeared John McCain. The question is then whether deliberately smearing a presidential candidate in order to sway a national election is more vicious, nasty, and manipulative than reporting what a DEA agent said about marijuana. I'll let readers of the debate decide.

b. Pro says, "If FOX reported that coffee "WILL KILL you" we wouldn't be having this conversation, do you know why?" Sure I know why. If someone in the Department of Health said "coffee will kill you," I guarantee that Fox would report it, along with every other news organization. Pro doesn't care whether or not coffee gets a bum rap, but he cares a lot about marijuana's reputation, hence the conversation. Reports appear periodically about coffee being a terrible thing for your health or being fine for your health. News outlets love either kind of story, because people are interested.

c. I cite Pro for bad conduct. He says, "You, however, ARE playing the ignorance card ..." and "Your own conservative bias is starting to show through the debate now as you justify FOX's actions by trying to extend your ignorance over the voters and myself like a cloak." Pro should stick to debating the issues.

d. NY Times on Abu Ghraib

Pro grants that the Times fifty front page stories implying Abu Ghraib abuses were official policy were vicious, mean, and nasty. He says that the Fox marijuana story was worse because Fox has a larger audience.

Fox ratings are up recently due to the Chilean mine rescue, but they are roughly 1.7 million viewers for the news segments. http://tvbythenumbers.com... The New York Times has a daily circulation of 0.95 million and a Sunday circulation of 1.4 million. http://www.nytimes.com... The series on Abu Ghraib therefore had a total circulation of about 50 million, compared to 1.7 million for the Fox story. The Abu Ghraib stories had many repeat readers, but the effect was to drive home the story with ever-increasing implications.

It isn't jut about the circulation, however. The New York times stories were used to recruit terrorists, and that ultimately cost the lives of terrorist victims. No one was killed by Fox story. It's doubtful it had any long term effect at all, just as it's doubtful that stories about coffee have any long term effect on coffee consumption.

3. Nazi propaganda

Pro argues, "If I steal a bike out of your neighbor's yard and sell it to you for an extremely low price then you are definitely purchasing some of the guilt of the action." The guilt comes from having gotten the bike at a suspiciously cheap price, which would be a tip it was stolen. News Corporation purchased 20th Century Fox, with no hint of a bargain price. The Wikipedia history of 20th Century Fox has no hint of anything but entertainment in their past. http://en.wikipedia.org... The purchase was all about "Planet of the Apes" and other such entertainment properties, and nothing whatsoever to do with propaganda or news. Fox News received nothing but the name "Fox" from the acquisition. The entertainment evolved into Fox Television, which produces "The Simpsons." Pro's argument works better to prove that The Simpsons is Nazi propaganda, since at least the entertainment part has some direct lineage. The argument is nonsense.

Pro claims, "there is no way to use personalities like Palin and Beck and remain objective." The debate is not about objectivity, is about whether Fox News is "the most vicious, nasty, and manipulative thing." Newspapers have an editorial page and have opinionated columnists. There is nothing "vicious, nasty, and manipulative" about doing so, because everyone recognizes opinion as opinion, and certainly Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck are recognized as presenting opinions. Abu Ghraib stories and McCain slanders in the Times meet the resolution because they are passed off as news.

4. Early libelous newspapers

Pro tries to compare the early libelous newspapers with what he claims to be Fox's Nazi propaganda. Fox News is in no way related to 20th Century Fox's activities, and those activities were completely incidental to the rise of Nazism. Besides, our debate is about US news, not German news.

5. The Web

Pro's resolution was about the vicious, nasty, manipulative *thing* to arise in terms of news. The Web is a thing and therefore counts. The Webs "vicious, mean, and nasty" content is without parallel. Therefore it is worse than Fox.
Caramel

Pro

Caramel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyLatham

Con

Whether something is "mean, nasty, and manipulative" is mainly an issue of style. Consider:

"Listen up you dumb ****. The square of the hypotenuse IS equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. If you don't agree you are foul and evil, and probably a child molester."

That is mean, nasty, and manipulative even though the part about triangles is true. In this debate, Pro has offered nothing about Fox News that meets the definition of mean, nasty, and manipulative. Fox did quote a Dug Enforcement Agency official with less skepticism then they probably should have, but that is an issue of good reporting not being nasty.

I offered evidence of two examples of "things" in news that do meet the terms of the resolution, and are legitimate candidates for being the worst in the history of the Republic. Soon after the Bill of Rights was adopted, there was a surge in slanderous journalism. In our times, the rise of Internet has brought about new adventures in nasty "news." I'm not arguing that the Internet as whole is a negative, but mean and nasty is definitely part of the package. Pro argued that somehow my examples should not count, but both clearly meet the intent of the resolution.

If bad reporting is supposed to count as meeting the resolution, then the New York Times is worse than Fox. Their false series of fifty front page articles implying that Abu Ghraib was official policy encouraged terrorism and probably cost innocent lives. Their false reporting on McCain did not turn the election, but it had a significant impact. The Fox marijuana story had no measurable impact.

Whatever Fox Movie Studios did in the 1930's is irrelevant. There is nothing in common but the name.

Pro forfeited the last round; I claim that is a conduct violation, akin to walking out in the middle of face-to-face debate. Pro does deserve some credit for showing up to at least start a debate of his remarks. Under the terms of the debate, he must pass and not argue in this round. that provides us each equal space.

The resolution is negated.
Caramel

Pro

You know what Roy... You are right. I just saw an ad by a local NBC station that deliberately targeted the Republicans' TV ads as negative (with no mention to the Dems) and then starting playing clips of people telling how they aren't going to pay attention to these negative Republican ads. There is no excuse to single out a single party for negative ads when both parties are clearly doing it, and with this type of activity going on I cannot just continue to hurl stones at FOX even if it seems like they are more blatant in their bad reporting from my political vantage point.

I was watching this ad while I was typing up my second round argument, so it had a strong effect on me. It's useless to attack one party for what both parties do and, for the most part, the worst stuff is done by both parties - and their respective news stations.

I'll still have plenty to disagree with you on in the future though Roy so don't get comfortable.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Freeman, The poll appears to site the same numbers from the same bogus creations. To be believable, cite Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew, etc. Remember the big hoax about George Bush's IQ? Somebody starts it and it gets repeated forever on the Internet.

Fox has given the facts correctly on each of the issues you have cited. For example, O'Reilly researched Obama's birth and found two Honolulu newspapers that reported Obama's birth on the day it happened in Honolulu, and he has referred to that repeatedly whenever the sbject comes up. Glen Beck has stated repeatedly that he believes that Obama is a US citizen. Fox has never said or implied any of the factual errors that you cite, nor have they to my knowledge let such errors go uncorrected. Since the errors did not originate with Fox, the theory must be that people who have strange ideas, the ideas having originated from mental defect, watch Fox because Fox attracts such people.

If errors derive from the mental defects of people, we ought to similarly conclude that the defect that caused people to believe that Republicans were controlling Congress would similarly drive them to vote for Obama. In other words, since Obama didn't say that Republicans controlled Congress, just as Fox didn't make any factual errors, it's the same theory of stupid people being attracted to a blameless source.

I didn't track down the poll on who controlled Congress, but here is reference to a Zogby poll that is along the same lines: http://www.dinocrat.com... Incidentally, the poll revealed that 86% of voters thought that Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her house, even though it was Tina Fey who actually said it.

In general, there are widespread false beliefs that persist even though no reputable source asserts them. For example, no one of any repute says that astrology works, but 25% of the population believes in it. Ideas have a life of there own.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
We're technically gaining jobs--but not enough to keep up with population growth. The nominal # of jobs isn't what matters, the unemployment rate is. And unemployment is the highest it's been since the beginning of the recession (the official U3 rate is slightly lower now, but using a broader measure, which includes people who've been unemployed so long they've stopped looking for jobs, it is the highest it's been since the beginning of the recession. So the U3 rate is only going down because people are unemployed so long they stop looking for work--clearly not a sign of an improving economy).

As for GDP, real GDP is only growing if you use the official CPI calculations to calculate the amount of inflation. That number doesn't measure the real amount prices are increasing, because after the various changes over the past few decades, it leaves out a bunch of stuff, or calculates it in a way that makes it seem like there's less inflation (mainly food, energy, and housing numbers iirc). Using the CPI calculations used in the 1970s, we haven't had a single year with positive real GDP growth since 2001.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
The stimulus didn't lose jobs. We're gaining jobs, albeit very slowly.

You're going to buy me the beer in ten years, and you'll wear this shirt while doing it. http://rlv.zcache.com...

The economy isn't getting worse. It's getting better, albeit very slowly. We're officially out of the recession. The GDP has had consecutive growth.

You just can't admit how cool Obama is. :P http://assets.theatlantic.com...

http://www.theatlantic.com...
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Freeman, by "fact," I meant a provable statement. How good the economy is cannot be proven, and is largely subjective. The ability to predict climate change is something that we aren't nearly as capable of as most would like to believe. Whether or not the health care law will, either now or in the future, end up increasing the deficit, is definitely up for debate. Nobody can count the net change in jobs caused directly or indirectly by the stimulus legislation, especially not the government. And Obama can't prove his own state of birth properly.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs"

I'm more than willing to debate this.

"72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit"

It will, and you are going to have to buy me a beer in 10 years :P

"72 percent believe the economy is getting worse"

It definitely is.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
*How are you connecting these dots?
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
@Roy

Three things.

1. Where are you getting your "facts" from? "Nearly half of the people who voted for Obama believed that the Republicans controlled Congress, when in fact the Democrats had been in control since 2006. Very few of the McCain voters made that mistake."

2. The issue is related to specific news agencies and what their viewers believe. It isn't connected to what people believe in correlation with who they voted for.

3. This ---> http://voices.washingtonpost.com... doesn't appear to be related to this ---> http://www.alternet.org...

The story you're referring to goes back to June 30, 2010; 3:36 PM ET. The study in question just came out. How are connecting these dots?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Freeman, Nearly half of the people who voted for Obama believed that the Republicans controlled Congress, when in fact the Democrats had been in control since 2006. Very few of the McCain voters made that mistake. So does that prove that voting for Obama causes stupidity? Or perhaps it proves that the mainstream media told lies that Obama voters believed?

However, the poll numbers you cited are apparently bogus. The polls were commissioned by the Daily Kos, and it was later revealed that the numbers had been fudged by the pollster, apparently to please their client. The Kos ended up suing the pollster. http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by Caramel 6 years ago
Caramel
Could you guys take the sidebar somewhere else? Roy and I are trying to run a post-debate here...
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

You think those things are a matter of opinion? Each item is a matter of concrete fact (e.g., Obama was either born in the US or he wasn't). The health care law will either increase the deficit or it won't. And FYI, it won't. Climate change is either occurring or it isn't. And FYI, it is.

You can always find some idiot with a Ph.D to argue anything. That doesn't mean their existence makes uncontroversial issues controversial.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
RoyLathamCaramelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Vote Placed by Thorae 6 years ago
Thorae
RoyLathamCaramelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
RoyLathamCaramelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60