The Instigator
left_wing_mormon
Pro (for)
Winning
60 Points
The Contender
shwayze
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2008 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,861 times Debate No: 3594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (90)
Votes (28)

 

left_wing_mormon

Pro

deceitful: having a tendency or disposition to deceive: a: not honest, b: deceptive, misleading (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

I hope that whoever accepts this debate will accept the fact that Fox News is bias to the right-wing. This debate is not about MSNBC, CNN, ABC, ect. Fox is the network on trial here, and I wish to refrain from bringing in other networks to this discussion.

This debate is only seeking an answer to the question "Is Fox News a deceitful source for 'news'?"

To start off, I will assume my opponent recognizes that Fox news is in fact bias, so my first example of deceit will be the very slogan of Fox News itself:
Fair and Balanced.

How can a bias news network actually tell their viewers that their news is totally fair. Balanced? Fox News gives both sides to every issue; George Bushs' and Dick Cheneys'. You can fair and biased at the same time. Imagine if Air Americas slogan was: Non partisan Talk and Both-Sided Hosts.
shwayze

Con

Everyone is biased. Everything people say is biased (and I don't have a problem with that). That's how we were created: we have our own beliefs and opinions. When it comes to news network, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be unbiased. I hope you can understand that. There is no way a news network can be right down the middle on every single issue and topic that is discussed. Most news corporations "try" to bring an "unbiased" opinion to reporting, but to think that there isn't bias is just naive.

I will concede the point that Fox News is biased to the right-wing. But that doesnt mean they cant be fair and balanced. Fair doesnt mean unbiased. Fair is offering both sides of the argument with equal representation (aka balance). The greatest example of this is Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity, a conservative, and Alan Colmes, a liberal, on the same show! WOW! Who could imagine? And every time they have a panel, there is always equal representation (trust me on this. I havent missed a show in 4 or 5 months). Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Dan Schoen, Lanny Davis, and a few other names I cant remember off the top of my head are almost daily contributors to the program and all of them are liberals. This is the norm on other shows with Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Sustren, etc.

I'm 100% sure Fox News doesn't tell viewers their news is (as you put it) "totally fair." (And to be frank, I dont think anything at any point in time is every totally fair.)

The ratings speak for themselves. Fox News must be doing something....fair.
Debate Round No. 1
left_wing_mormon

Pro

I just wrote an entire response and then somehow it deleted. So here we go again.

Thank you for establishing the right-wing bias on Fox, but this is where we disagree. You just cannot say Fair and Balanced and then provide biased commentary. That is lieing. If somebody seeks the truth and some one tells you they got the fair side to the story, but provide a biased story, that my friend is deceitful.

Thank you for bringing up Hannity and colmes. As a liberal, I feel that alan colmes is the worst representation of the left out there. In fcat Colmes even told a USA Today reporter (and I quote) "I am a moderate...".

You want to do something fun? Watch Hannity and colmes and count how many words each host says. Heres my results :Hannity-2086 colmes-1261. Why is it that Sean is so good looking and well spoken and "smart" and Colmes seems to be the bad looking and "dumb witted"? Subliminal if you ask me....Could it be that Sean Hannity got to pick out his very own cohost all by himself?

This show is anything but fair and balanced. Yes they do have some pretty decent left-wingers on their panel but since you watch the show you can confirm that they get silenced very quickly by Sean. I watch it too.

One more thing about Hannity. This guy has a 3 hour radio show monday through friday on Fox Radio, an hour long show he cohosts mon.-fri., and a half hour show that runs on sunday (Hanntys America) which runs twice back to back. (so really it's like an hour.) Alan has a two hour show and "co-hosts" Hannity and Colmes. Not very fair...

One thing about the ratings, since you brought them up. They actuaslly took a massive nose dive, and ended up being #6 in the networks behind CNN and MSNBC. http://www.broadcastingcable.com...

Look at the prime time of Fox. Tell me that they are giving both sides to every story with Brit Hume, John Gibson, Shepard Smith, Bill O'Reilly, Hanntiy and that other guy on the show who no one really cares about becuase he isn't as good looking as Sean. Bill calls his show the NO SPIN ZONE! But using my opponets logic Bill is lying to his veiwers because not only is the network biased but everyone who says their opinion is biased, so it obviously has some spin. It is deceitful to call it the no-spin zone when all your show does is spread the right-wing agenda. Not even Keith Olbermann says his show is fair and balanced.
shwayze

Con

You need to understand the point that everything is biased. Every single person in the world has convictions and beliefs that they strongly believe in. And their bias towards their opinion will be evident. This isnt a bad thing, it's just the way we were made. And I think it's healthy to have a plethora of opinion (aka bias) in the world.

There is absolutely no way to provide unbiased commentary. Unbiased commentary is an oxy moron.

Alan Colmes can say whatever position he wants to be, but he is a definitely left of center and a direct contrast to almost everything Sean Hannity believes in.

The reason the word count favors Hannity is because Colmes has nothing intelligent to say. Liberal talking points only go so far. (By the way, I still think Colmes is an intelligent and somewhat rational person.)

Sean Hannity doesnt have a mute button to silence the opposing voices on Hannity and Colmes. If they do get silenced or shut down by Sean, it's because he normally wins the arguments.

I dont think it's reasonable to say that since Sean has more airtime and tv shows than Colmes that that is somehow unfair. It's called ratings, and Sean obviously gets more than Alan Colmes.

I'm not sure where you were going with that link because it proves my point exactly and disproves your claim that CNN and MSNBC were ranked ahead of Fox News:

"Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable's top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth.

For the year in primetime, Fox News was the No. 6-ranked cable channel behind USA Network, TNT, ESPN, TBS and Lifetime Television. That's two notches higher than its ranking last year. CNN, its closest news competitor, was No. 26, down one."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com...

Since when did looks matter in political news? I care about the content and integrity of the news, not the physical appearance of the host who delivers it.

Again, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced", not "Fair and Unbiased." Find me a quote from Fox News saying their coverage is unbiased and you have a legitimate gripe and I would in fact agree with you. But the bottom line is that Fox News is not claiming to be unbiased.
Debate Round No. 2
left_wing_mormon

Pro

The following are my closing statements.

Look back at the definition for Deceit. The one agreement between my opponet and myself is that deceit means dishonest. Using this, I have established that Fox News tells veiwers that the network does indeed have a hard right-wing bias. Now, telling people they are getting the fair story and yet providing biased "news" than that is lieing, deceitful.

"There is absolutely no way to provide unbiased commentary. Unbiased commentary is an oxy moron." I agree with you. So would it be honest for liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller to tell her listeners that she is fair and balanced? I would say no. That my friend would be a lie.

Again I agree with you: "The reason the word count favors Hannity is because Colmes has nothing intelligent to say." My point was that Alan Colmes is weak. Any smart liberal would be outraged when their co-host says something like (And I quote Sean) "They(liberals) tell us not to drive fuel burning SUVs, but flag burning SOBs are fine..." I would like to say now, that if Alan was a smart liberal he would punce on that statement and say liberals don't think flag burning is right, but that slips by. Alan seems to know his place on Fox...

Well, it does matter that Sean gets more tv and radio time, because he is the main conservative on Fox, the talking head of the Network. He represents only a one sided veiwpoint and he gets more media than Alan. If Fox was really balanced why not give Alan the same treatment? (Now would be a good time to use the word "deceitful...)

Again, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced", not "Fair and Unbiased." Unbiased means balanced. Thats why it is deceitful. People feel like they are getting the whole story, but there is a clear bias! LIES! DECEIT!!

And my closing. You said: "But the bottom line is that Fox News is not claiming to be unbiased."
Here are some slogans for Fox, tell me that they are not telling their veiwers that they are unbiased:
"Fair & Balanced"
"The No Spin Zone"
"We Report You Decide" (I choose this one, becuase this again tells veiwers that the story is being reported truthfully and all that is left is for the veiwers to make your own opinion. Hard to do when you are being told a biased story)

The REAL bottom line. I would have no problem if Fox News "came out of the closet" and admitted they were bias. That would not botther me. However, it is deceitful to profess to be Fair and yet be bias. Balanced and biased doesn't work either. Thank you, and good luck. Pleasure debating you again shwayze.
shwayze

Con

"Fox News tells veiwers that the network does indeed have a hard right-wing bias."

You can't put words into the mouth of Fox News. Do you really think that hosts and anchors on the network would say such a thing? I can say with 99% certainty that Fox News does (and has never) tell/told their viewers that its network has a "hard right-wing bias."

"Now, telling people they are getting the fair story and yet providing biased "news" than that is lieing, deceitful."

I would argue the news is fair, and the commentary is balanced because they actually bring in both sides of the argument. There is always going to be bias. You need to get your mind around that. Obviously there is a slight bias towards the right-wing of politics, but IT IS INEVITABLE.

"Well, it does matter that Sean gets more tv and radio time, because he is the main conservative on Fox, the talking head of the Network. He represents only a one sided veiwpoint and he gets more media than Alan. If Fox was really balanced why not give Alan the same treatment? (Now would be a good time to use the word "deceitful...)"

Well a) Alan Colmes works for Air America and b) he wouldn't get any ratings on Fox.

It's not the fact that Fox is giving Sean better treatment than Alan Colmes, the bottom line is that ratings are everything when it comes to TV. TV is a popularity contest. When your show is popular, you get more TV time. It's media 101. Just like when sex sells, ratings do the same thing.

"Unbiased means balanced. Thats why it is deceitful. People feel like they are getting the whole story, but there is a clear bias!"

First off, it is a stretch to equate "unbias" to balance. Secondly, if people felt like they weren't getting the whole story and that there was so much right wing bias, they would change the channel and watch another news network. I think the ratings speak for themselves.

"The REAL bottom line. I would have no problem if Fox News "came out of the closet" and admitted they were bias. That would not botther me. However, it is deceitful to profess to be Fair and yet be bias. Balanced and biased doesn't work either."

You fundamentally just do not understand the bias that is naturally always there. I'll give you a perfect example of "fair and balanced": THIS DEBATE. I think I have been completely fair and balanced in this debate, but there is an obvious bias on my side. This is exactly what I'm trying to get through to you. Though there is always bias, whether blatant or slight, you can still be fair and balanced. This is why I feel Fox News is not deceitful.
Debate Round No. 3
90 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by weather 7 years ago
weather
Just because is doesn't say what you want it to say, doesn't mean it is Bias and Deceitful
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
the ratings dont lie:

http://www.mediabistro.com...
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
"Economic conservatives have a special love for cutting capital gains taxes. Not only do they feel it is one of the most destructive taxes that exists, but it was the 1978 capital gains tax cut—along with Proposition 13 the same year in California—that really launched the supply-side tax revolution. Now Barack Obama says he wants to perhaps nearly double the capital gains tax rate. Here is what he told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo last week (boldface mine):

Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent. I would—and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it—and if it, you know—when I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, you know, what's—how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range, then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making.

My take: Obama got it wrong. The capital gains rate during the Clinton administration fell from 28 percent at the beginning to 20 percent with the signing of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 in August of that year. Interestingly, the economy managed only two years of growth of 4 percent or more in the decade previous to the 1997 cap gains cut—but notched three straight years of such growth in 1997, 1998, and 1999."

(US NEWS: March 31, 2008)
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
We're a capitalist country that outgrew Europe IN just 200 years.

And by growth, I'm talking about GDP. The United States has more than the top 5 European countries COMBINED!!!! The United States has a 13.86 trillion dollar GDP followed by Japan with right around 4 trillion. Germany, the highest GDP of any country in Europe, has just 3.2 Trillion Dollar GPD. (https://www.cia.gov......). These are the bare facts...it's hard to discount facts (even though liberals have made a profession out of it).

If you think that majority of Americans wants liberal activist judges like Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a former ACLU laywer...can you believe that???) then you are terribly mistaken and have been watching too much MSNBC.

Barack Obama has continually said he's going to raise the capital gains tax to 28%. Why dont you watch or read the news and learn something?

It is a fact that roughly 150,000,000 Americans have some sort of stock investment in the market. Don't be so naive. Ask anyone of your friends parents, their friends, theirs friend's friends...the overwhelming majority of Americans HAVE STOCK!

You probably don't even know what the capital gains tax is.

"Yeah, uh, too much tax cuts is actually BAD for the economy. "

AM I BLIND OR DID I JUST READ THAT TAX CUTS WERE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY? your ideology is stunningly naive.

What do the American people want? They want deregulation, limited government, less taxes, and FREEDOM from an overpowering government that has no signs of slowing down.
Posted by Kierkegaard 8 years ago
Kierkegaard
Yeah, uh, too much tax cuts is actually BAD for the economy. There has to be a balance. We're in pools and pools of debt. Monetarily or fiscally is completely fine with me, regardless of which one it is. As long as it WORKS, then it's fine. To get OUT of debt, and try and PREVENT a recession, everybody will have to sacrifice.

Aaand you didn't cite the part where you say what the American people want. See, this is funny to me, since Obama will probably win the election.

Aaaand it's not really surrender. It's called "realizing we're not doing any good, and there wasn't any reason to go in in the first place."

Oh, and technically, you didn't cite each of those sources TWICE.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
Elitist socialists? In MY America?

It's more likely than you think.
Posted by Kierkegaard 8 years ago
Kierkegaard
Did I *need* to cite my non-existant sources? I'll I've been doing is commenting on the crap you say. YOU, however, said that Britain would be bankrupt in 15-20 years. Unless you're an expert in economy, then I'd like you to cite that source. Otherwise, I can just disregard your whole argument.

Oh, and speaking of citing sources, your whole post is full of uncited sources. For example, where did you read that "Europe is just 200 years."? (If you're referring to the outgrowing thing, look at the size of the US, and the size of Great Britain.) And when you say "outgrow Europe", what the crap do you mean? Are you saying the land mass of US has grown over the years? That we have more money? More people? Better army? You're being so general it's not really possible to attack your argument...but I will anyways. Does...freedom ring a bell? ...Voting, maybe? Those aren't simply parts of capitalism, and if Obama gets elected it's not like those will go away.

Another thing you didn't cite, and obviously just made up, is that electing liberal judges is "defiantly against the will of the American people." See, you didn't cite that, and one can assume that's a load of crap. If anything, half of the people in the US think it's a bad idea, again, if ANYTHING.

Nor did you cite the part where he doubles the capital gains tax, but that's getting a little nit-picky. And not that I mind that anyways.

You also didn't cite what the world "DOULBE" means.

You also didn't cite the part where you say that "recent studies show that more than half of the population in the United States have stock investments. This includes the middle and lower class dramatically." Not only do you not use dramatically correctly so I have no clue what you're talking about, but..you didn't cite your source. So, everything you say about Obama "crippling" people's income (which is crap regardless) has no.."base of operations", should I say.

To be continued:
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
Barack Obama would be a disaster in the White House. His inexperience, terrible judgement, naievity, and radical ideology are just what we dont in the United States of America We're a capitalist country that outgrew Europe is just 200 years. Do you know how? CAPITALISM. But Barack Obama wants to appoint liberal judges (which is defiantly against the will of the American people), DOUBLE THE CAPITALS GAINS TAX TO 28%- which i think is one of the most uneducated and moronic things I have seriously ever heard in my life. Most countries dont even have a capital gains tax, AND BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO DOULBE WHAT IT IS NOW (14%) AND RAISE IT TO 28%! Recent studies show that more than half of the population in the United States have stock investments. This includes the middle and lower class dramatically; they are low-income earners and have the little stock they own in the market directed at retirement, maybe some vacations, you get my jist. Barack Obama is going to cripple their earnings from what they would receive under a Conservative administration like Bush (14%). But wait, the GOP is the evil rich party who doesnt care for the rich and whose tax cuts are only for the rich, WHEN UNDER THE BUSH TAX CUTS OF 2001 AND 2003, FAMILIES MAKING $50,000 OR LESS ACTUALLY SAVED 2,000 DOLLARS. The liberals and democrats are the party of the people! YA RIGHT. If only the American population could see through the amazing media bias and see the truth for what it is. The American people are a traditionalist people. They don't want radical "change" that Barack Obama wants: national healthcare, liberal justices, drug legalization, surrender in Iraq, and INCREASED REGULATION AND TAXES. Wake up democrats. You're about to elect the most radical president the United States has ever seen. The United States should not be run by an elitist socialist.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
Barack Obama would be a disaster in the White House. His inexperience, terrible judgement, naievity, and radical ideology are just what we dont in the United States of America We're a capitalist country that outgrew Europe is just 200 years. Do you know how? CAPITALISM. But Barack Obama wants to appoint liberal judges (which is defiantly against the will of the American people), DOUBLE THE CAPITALS GAINS TAX TO 28%- which i think is one of the most uneducated and moronic things I have seriously ever heard in my life. Most countries dont even have a capital gains tax, AND BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO DOULBE WHAT IT IS NOW (14%) AND RAISE IT TO 28%! Recent studies show that more than half of the population in the United States have stock investments. This includes the middle and lower class dramatically; they are low-income earners and have the little stock they own in the market directed at retirement, maybe some vacations, you get my jist. Barack Obama is going to cripple their earnings from what they would receive under a Conservative administration like Bush (14%). But wait, the GOP is the evil rich party who doesnt care for the rich and whose tax cuts are only for the rich, WHEN UNDER THE BUSH TAX CUTS OF 2001 AND 2003, FAMILIES MAKING $50,000 OR LESS ACTUALLY SAVED 2,000 DOLLARS. The liberals and democrats are the party of the people! YA RIGHT. If only the American population could see through the amazing media bias and see the truth for what it is. The American people are a traditionalist people. They don't want radical "change" that Barack Obama wants: national healthcare, liberal justices, drug legalization, surrender in Iraq, and INCREASED REGULATION AND TAXES. Wake up democrats. You're about to elect the most radical president the United States has ever seen. The United States should not be run by an elitist socialist.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
look back at how many sources you counted.wait I dont see one. Im speaking common sense and capitalism. They prove themselves.

And I'm referring to the McCain-Oreilly interview.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LoganBarnes 8 years ago
LoganBarnes
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 8 years ago
huntertracker6
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by JonJon 8 years ago
JonJon
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by pitteas 8 years ago
pitteas
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by livi 8 years ago
livi
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Phoebe 8 years ago
Phoebe
left_wing_mormonshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30