The Instigator
thepole
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Fox News Has a Conservative Bias

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 4 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2010 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,177 times Debate No: 10654
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

thepole

Pro

I believe that Fox News is not fair and balanced and that it does have a strong Conservative Bias.

I will allow my opponent to begin.
Nails

Con

Bias:
•influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"

Certain people on Fox News whose names end in -enn Beck might be biased, but this doesn't necessarily reflect Fox News's views as a whole.

I don't believe that Fox's portrayal of current events is in any way unfair, I see no reason to assume such absent a reason given by PRO, so I'll await his arguments showing Fox to be biased.
Debate Round No. 1
thepole

Pro

Examples of FNC Bias.

1. During the 2008 Election FNC constantly covered Obama's relationship with Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers.

But FNC Rarely Mentioned John McCain's relationship with Gordon Liddy a man who was Conspiracy, Burglary, Illegal Wire tapping and had a big role in the watergate scandal. He spent 4.5 years in prison. Mccain said "I'm not in any way embarrased to know Gordon Liddy". Fox never covered it in fact on Bill O'reillys on radio show O'reilly yelled at a caller for mentioning him.

2. Fox attacked Jay-Z and Yong Jezzy for making the song " My President is black " which praised Obama. But Never mentioned Conservative Radio host Rush Limbaugh when he sang "Barack the magic Negro".

3. Fox attacked Obama for something as ridicoulous as a fist bump even calling it a terrorist fist jab.

But FNC said nothing when Palin did a interview on a chicken farm and there was a chicken being slaughtered in the backround.

4. http://www.thefoxnation.com... a opinion website ran by FNC has posted talking pages with titles such as "Are we watching a failed presidency", "Obama bows again is he are most embarrasing president", "why is Obama still in Hawaii". Those are just 3 of many and there are extremely few posts attacking conservatives and most of them involve a liberal in some way.

5. FNC has had numerous town hall protesters on their programing never arguing with anything they said.

6. Fox didn't send a camera crew to a gay rights protest with over 10,000 people but sent a camera crew to a much smaller protest that was allready over and empty.

http://www.thedailyshow.com...-

7. Hannity changed video footage to make a anti health reform protest look bigger.
http://www.thedailyshow.com...

8. On April 15th Fox sent Hannity, Beck, Van Sustren, and Cavuto to do live shows at TEA party protests, thats 4 hours of Obama bashing.

I'll just post those 8 for now.
Nails

Con

1. Covering Bill Ayers hardly shows bias. It was just a far larger and more interesting news story.

Even CNN and MSNBC covered it far more:

CNN has 2,550 articles about Bill Ayers[1] compared to 504 for Gordon Liddy.[2]
MSNBC has 929 articles about Bill Ayers[3] compared to 171 for Gordon Liddy.[4]

2. Perhaps I missed it, but I cannot fine my opponent's source for this. Hopefully he will point it out next round so I can give an informed rebuttal.

3. I'm not sure where my opponent gets this idea. Watch the very video he posted to try to validate this!
There is nothing at all to suggest that Fox attacked Obama for doing a terrorist fist jab with his wife.
Just listen to the way the announcer says it, "A terrorist fist JAB? People call it ALL SORTS of things."
(1) It's pretty clear to me that the woman speaking in no way took it seriously, from the tone of her voice.
(2) She never says 'Obama did a terrorist fist jab.' She was responding to 'all sorts of things' that other people called it.
(3) The video is only 8 seconds of commentary taken out of context and played in a loop.

4. The first parapraph of http://www.thefoxnation.com... is "Welcome to FOX Nation, a new community where all Americans are encouraged to share, discuss, and debate."[5]

I would say that this shows Fox's penchant for being 'fair and balanced.' Rather than simply watching the news and being forced to hear what they want you to, this site allows discussion and debate on the key issues. If you dislike the articles being posted, you are free to disagree and have your voice heard.

You'll find, though, that the reason the conservative issues might garner more support among the viewers, is because that particular demographic most often visits the site.[6]

5. As with #2, PRO (to my knowledge) hasn't given any source to confirm this. Consider this, though. How many angry liberals would be protesting at the proposal of the new bill? The conservative protesters were the only ones that got air time because they were the only ones that did anything extreme in the face of the bill.

6. PRO's link brings me to a page with an error message.

7.
a. Neither clip truly misrepresents anything. Even the liberal estimate of the event was 10,000+ people. The relevant footage showed a fraction of that at best. So, how does a bit of footage of 1-3,000 people falsely testify to the size of a protest of 10-45,000 people?
b. For those who don't memorize old footage of healthcare reform protests, it's not exactly easy to catch the slip up. I would imagine this is a botched job on the part of some editor on the Fox News team, not some larger malicious conspiracy (to what gain?) and certainly not some biased broadcasting.

8. Sorry again but, like previous examples, I can't find a sourse for this.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
[2] http://www.google.com...=
[3] http://www.google.com...=
[4] http://www.google.com...=
[5] http://www.foxnews.com...
[6] http://www.quantcast.com...
Debate Round No. 2
thepole

Pro

thepole forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

We can only hope that the time my opponent has saved by ignoring this debate was spent watching Fox News.
Debate Round No. 3
thepole

Pro

thepole forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

Oh well...
:(
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
The link for source #6 doesn't work. Also, what are the sources for #5 and #8?
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"But FNC said nothing when Palin did a interview on a chicken farm and there was a chicken being slaughtered in the backround."

So?
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
What's the source for #2?
Posted by thepole 7 years ago
thepole
i can get many more
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I'm just gonna post 9 examples of Fox not being biased. Finding them should be the hard part...
Posted by thepole 7 years ago
thepole
I just wanted to let Nails start if i had no case i wouldn't instigate a debate. I just posted 8 examples
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
Agreed with Nails.

Fox does "rock" =P.
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
Simple, as the Pro and the instigator you should be presenting an argument that confirms your resolution; you are letting the Negative start first meaning you most likely don't have a definitive case or you are not confident enough to let your case be wide and open and to be judged by anyone before accepting this debate.

Not to accuse you of anything; but also if you want to debate something you should have some pressing argument that is ripping inside of you to get out, obviously you don't have that at the moment.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Fox rocks. Don't knock Fox.
Posted by thepole 7 years ago
thepole
How, I'm going to let him make the first arguments there is nothing wrong with that. I'll make arguments in the second round
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jetbey 7 years ago
jetbey
thepoleNailsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Vaibanez 7 years ago
Vaibanez
thepoleNailsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
thepoleNailsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
thepoleNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24