The Instigator
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
a_mysterious_stranger
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Fox News is a propaganda network

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 2 votes the winner is...
a_mysterious_stranger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 63529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

AbandonedSpring

Pro

accept if you think that fox news is a legitimate source for news.
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

News.
The definition of 'News' in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "Areport of recent events"
Fox News does broadcast a report of recent events.

Propaganda.

The definition of 'Propaganda' in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "Ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc."Fox News's slogan is 'Fair & Balanced'. Fox News is also a very popular news network, with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers.

CNN
CNN news, has actually been a subject of alleged Liberal bias."Writer Eric Altermanhas noted that many left-leaning criticsview CNN as more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics."
Debate Round No. 1
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Since you did not source you definitions, They are not valid. However, I will take them because they suit my argument.
I will be giving my argument this round, since rebuttals are next round. They will be based on 3 contingencies, which I will later sew together to for a seamless argument.

Contingency 1: As news stations with bias go, Fox news has more bias than MSNBC. Just because someones slogan is 'smart and intelligent' does't automatically make them that. Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?

Contingency 2: There exists no news network with no bias. Bias of news networks in on a spectrum. Just because one network has bias, does not automatically make it worse than another network, particularly if it has more bias. That is illogical.

Contingency 3: The lack of diversity on Fox News should be a red flag. The amount of white men on that show drastically out weighs the amount of women/African American people. And the only women on there are white women with blonde hair.

I am now open to rebuttals, thank you
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

Contingency 1 rebuttal
"Contingency 1: As news stations with bias go, Fox news has more bias than MSNBC. Just because someones slogan is 'smart and intelligent' does't automatically make them that."
Con provided no evidence to supporting that Fox News is more biased than MSNBC, therefore, that statement is false, until evidence proves it to be true. And I never said their slogan made them 'smart and intelligent', I was just showing you their slogan. "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?". I never said a high rating would make them good, however,I did say that if they were biased, and used slander, they would not have high ratings.


Contingency 2 rebuttal
"Contingency 2: There exists no news network with no bias. Bias of news networks in on a spectrum. Just because one network has bias, does not automatically make it worse than another network, particularly if it has more bias. That is illogical."
I never said that Fox News was 100% clean, and bias-free. But like I said, CNN is a target with Liberal bias, Fox News, is not.


Contingency 3 rebuttal
"Contingency 3: The lack of diversity on Fox News should be a red flag. The amount of white men on that show drastically out weighs the amount of women/African American people. And the only women on there are white women with blonde hair.
" This is completely irrelevant...It has nothing to do with the subject, therefore, I will not make any rebuttal on this statement.

Sources;
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://deadline.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AbandonedSpring

Pro

As for your first rebuttal: You supplied to evidence for your argument either, therefore your argument is just as invalid as mine. However, since you asked, here it is.
http://www.salon.com...

Also, you responded to my comment, "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?"

I used this situation as a metaphor. "with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers. " You implied that because they have high ratings, that they are not biased. This however, is incorrect.

Rebuttal 2: If CNN is liberal, pecan pie would articles like this be released?
http://www.cnn.com...
I'm not saying it has bias either, it just covers it up a little better.

Rebuttal 3: It is completely relevant, I will explain why now. It's no secret that Fox news has handled racism issues before. Watch this explain to me how having a completely white staff, and then saying that racism is over is acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com...
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

Statement 1
I did support my argument with evidence, it's in the sources...

Statement 2
That article was written by a contributor of CNN, not everyone in CNN will be a liberal. But a majority of employees are.

Statement 3
It's not relevant, and youtube is not an official source. There can be edits, changes, and of course, there's bias. List a real source of Fox News being racist, then I'll listen.

Sources;
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://deadline.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
AbandonedSpring

Pro

you have completely twisted my words. For your third statement, you said I called them racist, however, I never said such a thing. I said that a very popular man on the network said that racism was over. The people on Fox news have very little concern for civil issues regarding race. Next, Youtube is not a source your right. the news group who covers the topic however, is.

However, you did ask for a scenario where Fox news may have been a bit racist, so I provided that as well.

http://mediamatters.org...

For your 1st statement, You did not explain you evidence in your argument. Therefor, it's invalid. Whether you included a link or not, is also irrelevant. To express my argument, I must know how you feel on the website, not how some author feels about it.

For your second statement: I understand this, but I also understand that Fox news would never release an article on the downfall of conservatism.

Overall however, the debate does not include CNN, mainly because I don't watch it. I don't watch News at all. Theres just too much bias that shows though regardless of where you watch.

Now, you did not respond to my argument: "Also, you responded to my comment, "Likewise, high rating don't make something good. Just like how Justin Bieber has millions of followers- does that make him good?"

I used this situation as a metaphor. "with very high ratings. If it was biased, and had political slander, it wouldn't have high ratings, or many viewers. " You implied that because they have high ratings, that they are not biased. This however, is incorrect."

I'm assuming you agreed to it, because you did not mention it in your rebuttals, however I know that now that I have called it out, you will rebut it, so I'm making that clear.

Finally, you have somewhat danced around the topic by mentioning CNN. As I've said, I don't watch CNN. I've seen snippets from all channels, and while I have seen bias in all channels, Fox news seems to try to fill your mind with subliminal messaging. Look for it the next time you watch it, because it's there.

thanks, I am finished.
a_mysterious_stranger

Con

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com......

http://www.merriam-webster.com......

http://deadline.com......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

How do you not see these? Quit saying I did not explain my evidence, if you're not willing to examine the evidence, do not say anything like that.

Irrelevant
Like I said, the 'ethnic diversity' thing, is irrelevant, and does not have anything to do with propaganda. Actually, you never even listed anything with 'propaganda'

News
You said you do not watch the news at all, therefore you don't know watch Fox enough, to say it's bias. By the way you have never listed any 'fox news propaganda'.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by axowarr 2 years ago
axowarr
Don't worry, I will pick up this debate soon. Btw, Fox is not only biased and unbalanced, they brag about it. When I debate this issue I predict my challenger will quit before completion.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
I didn't have to, I claimed that all of Fox news it. not just part.
Posted by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
Remember, pro never listed any 'fox news propaganda'
Posted by What_Ali_Thinks 2 years ago
What_Ali_Thinks
Fox News is not my go-to source for reading current events because I believe their stories are bias. I prefer CNN and BBC news which has less bias in their stories.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
Just a message out to Con: Wikipedia should never be used as a source, since it is something anyone can edit.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I have a comment on just about every debate, Don't flatter yourself. I am not following you anywhere.
Posted by dancampbell869 2 years ago
dancampbell869
This is extremely biased. If you disagree with the network, that's fine, but just know that your MSNBC and CNN are exactly the same as Fox News, just from the other side. Not only is this argument wrong of you to make, but you have literally given 0 examples of "propaganda" or false reporting by Fox. Yes Fox is a Conservative network, but that doesn't make them a "propaganda" network, it just means they have different views than you. Also, bringing up race is laughable, you should lose the debate for that argument alone. The extremeness of your views worries me.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
you! you have a comment for every debate I'm in
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Who are you talking to?
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
Is there any reason why you just follow me around?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
AbandonedSpringa_mysterious_strangerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I realize it wasn't relevant, but kind of disappointed that Con didn't address the racism tangent. FOX does have minority reporters, and unlike MSNBC has those with dissenting opinions (e.g. Beckel, Colmes). FOX even has an entire channel dedicated to hispanics, see Fox News Latino. Blacks are something of an exception because they voted 96% for Obama and are openly liberal by and large, but that is just evidence the black community is racist, not FOX. In the rare instances where there are black conservatives or moderates they are included on Fox, for example Juan Williams, Arthur Neville, Harris Faulkner, Jehmu Greene, Wendell Goler, and Sanita Jackson. Pro completely failed to prove their original assertion however.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
AbandonedSpringa_mysterious_strangerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not give any evidence or make any arguments that directly pin Fox News as a propaganda network. Instead, he offered conjectural arguments that suggest that Fox News *might* be a propaganda network. He has hence failed to uphold his burden of proof and argument points go to Con. Towards the end, Pro started giving examples of instances where Fox News has been racist, which was irrelevant. I was hoping, instead, to see what exactly Pro accuses Fox News of propagating, and what his evidence for the same is. That was not made clear the entire debate. Both used sources; I'm awarding conduct to Con because Pro ignored his links and then proceeded to disregard his argument.