The Instigator
Willoweed
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
mythster
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Fox news is not a reliable station and spreads propaganda

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 6 votes the winner is...
Willoweed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,641 times Debate No: 19581
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Willoweed

Pro

My opponent can either make the first arguments or accept and let me argue first. However if he makes his/her arguments first he/she will not be allowed to argue in the last round in order to ensure we both have the same number of rounds.
Definitions:
Reliable
1.
To be depended on for accuracy and honesty

Propaganda
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
mythster

Con

Hello, and thank you for this very interesting debate! I'm sure it'll be a fun one to debate.

I will use this round to accept my position as con in this argument.
Before we begin I would like to know:
- What specific mode of propaganda is being referred to? (Political propaganda, religious propaganda, etc.)
- Also, by spreads, do you mean it simply broadcasts this "propaganda" that negates from the item being broadcasted against or that it creates scenarios that put what ever is being represented in better scenarios than the latter (or both). By your definition of propaganda it would be harm but in the social sense it can be a metonymy, meaning to portray something better than actually is.
-Do you mean Fox News in it's entirety or the content of its shows. I say this as more of a technical question because technically a channel in and of itself cannot be bias or "spread propaganda", and rather the content of its programming does.
Debate Round No. 1
Willoweed

Pro

--I will mean political propaganda
--by spreads I mean broadcasts it
--By Fox news I mean its shows.

There have been over 5 research studies that show that the simple act of watching fox news makes one more misinformed and ignorant. I will post each one.

1)http://thinkprogress.org...
^More exposure to news outlets results in a better understanding of policies. However the opposite is true of FOX news; more Exposure to FOX news results in more misinformation.
For example:
1) 91% of FOX news viewers believed that "The Stimulus" caused job losses
2) 72% believe that the "new health care law" will expand the deficit.
3) 72% believe that the economy is getting worse from 2009-2010.
4) 60% believe that most scientists do not agree with man-made-climate-change.
5) 63% believe that "The Stimulus" did not contain any tax cuts.
6) 49% believed that their own taxes have increased.
7) 56% believed that the "Auto-bail out" occurred under Obama.
8) 63% are not clear that Obama is a US citizen.
9) 38% think most republicans voted against TARP.

2)http://thinkprogress.org...
^Study shows that FOX news viewers maintain false ideas about the health care bill due to FOX news false reporting.
1) 72% believe that the health care plan gives illegal immigrants health care
2) 79% believe health reform will lead to a government takeover
3) 69% think it will spend government money on abortions.
4) 75% believe it will allow the government to deny seniors health care.

3)http://www.sourcewatch.org...
^Fox news viewers believed several inaccurate statements about the Iraq war.
1) 57% believe that Iraq supported Al-Qaida.
2) 69% believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
3) 22% believed that WMD's were found in Iraq.

4)http://woods.stanford.edu...
^Another study finds the same conclusion as the first ones.
Fox news viewers are 30% more likely to think the world has not been warming.
Fox news viewers re 30% more likely to think global warming is non-man made.
Fox news viewers are 50% more likely to think addressing climate change will hurt the economy.

5)http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu...
^Fox news viewers were 66% more likely to hear lies about the Mosque due to watching fox broadcasts.

6)http://politicalwire.com...
^And yet another study finds the same conclusions.
mythster

Con

There have been over 5 research studies that show that the simple act of watching fox news makes one more misinformed and ignorant. I will post each one.

Here is the problem with your post. One cannot assume that it is FOX that is causing these statistics to exist in its viewers. There are countless other stimuli that could create these ideas in the viewer. Because the audience of Fox News interprets what the report says a certain way does not put it at responsibility for what they think. The news shows obligations are to mention certain stories being vocalized in the media at that certain time, and if people interpret what the see as fact, that's is the responsibility of the viewer and not the channel. Political commentary may be bias towards one party, but that is essentially the essence of a democratic political system. One can't simply place statistics on a certain demographic because that is simply what they are, a demographic. Unless there is complete 100%'s then it can't be completely bias, and the skewed mindset would have the be based on the stupidity (or lack thereof) of the viewer.
Debate Round No. 2
Willoweed

Pro

Tell me how are FOX news viewers supposed to interpret a debate that fox showed of Obama, only they used an Obama impersonator to substitute for Obama?
http://elections.americablog.com...

How are viewers supposed to interpret Fox news editing a discussion with John Stewart?
http://mediamatters.org...

How are views supposed to interpret Fox news lying about the age of someone in order to make it look like they were being statutory raped?
How are they supposed to interpret Fox news editing a video to make it look like Biden said the economy was strong in 2009?
How are the supposed to interpret Fox news editing a video to make it look like Obama said he wants health care to be exactly like in the UK?
How are they supposed to interpret Fox news claiming the VA didn't provide vets with health care cause they wanted them to die?
How are they supposed to interpret Fox news lying about the size of Obamas budget?
How are the supposed to interpret Fox news lying and claiming that people were being arrested for praying?
How are viewser supposed to interpret Fox news photo shopping images in order to smear another news organization?
http://www.spitefulcritic.com...

http://foxnewslies.net...
^Here's a list of thousands of Fox news lies

Not all the sources I listed simply tested for ignorance of Fox news viewers, some of them tested how accurate reporting on fox news was.
For example source 5 found that Fox reported lies about the Mosque controversy leading to its viewers developing misinformation.
Source 4 found that Foxes editing team purposely made it so its news casting had to report misleading information about climate change which lead to its viewers being misinformed on the issue.
Source 3 finds that 90% of the guest on Fox news are republicans. It also shows Fox news memos that tell its reporters to spread misinformation.
Also former Fox news employees have come out and said that their bosses made them report on the pro-republicans side only and told them not to report accurately or show the other side. One example of one of these employees is Reina.

The reason Fox news viewers are so misinformed isn't because people who watch Fox news are so stupid that they interpret reports inaccurately it is because Fox news reports are inaccurate in themselves and Fox news make sure that the interpretations can only be one sided.
mythster

Con

Good points. Again I must reinstate that fact that it is what the people who watch the shows see in the reoprting that determines the reliability of a news source. News is bound for altercations, as it is simply what it appears to be, new. If all news was accurate there would be no need for political slander and controversy, as there would be no need for speculation. In closing, I would like to say that one must view Fox News as nothing more that it is, a news agency, and any ineptitudes, without proper support, and assume its just speculative news reporting, and nothing more.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I could not agree more with Roy Latham.
Posted by Nalydmerc 5 years ago
Nalydmerc
I, personally, find this debate hilarious. Has anyone even thought to check the reliability of pro's sources? If Fox News is as corrupt as this pretense assumes, then who is to say that all of the sources listed are not just as liable to corruption?
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
lol free insurance...no wonder AIG is broke.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
40 million people will receive comprehensive health insurance at government expense and it won't cost a thing, so anyone who says otherwise is a propagandist. High percentages believe in astrology and ghosts, so science classes must be teaching it. Pro's arguments were not logical, and he not meet the burden of proof.

Still, Con should have rebutted Pro's false claims of facts and attacked Pro's ridiculously biased sources. Point out the lack of cause and effct suffices, but he should have done more.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
This entire premise for the debate was hillarious.

Disregarding all of the statistics could be brought to bear in the opposite direction to MSNBC, CNN, etc..

It appeared your post was just claiming that what is perceived as Truth (like Global warming being fraudulent) which has evidence of being fraudulent, was not truth. You would have to prove all of those assertions.

I found it humorous.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Willoweed,

A lot of those "misconceptions" that Fox News supposedly spread are true.... The stimulus will cause Job Losses in the long run and Climate Change Legislation will hurt the economy
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
FOX News programs, such as Fox News Live, is just as reliable as other stations, and doesn't spread propaganda. The FOX News Channel isn't reliable, and does spread propaganda.

Just because the channel says "FOX News" does not make it a News Newswork. Just like Music TV (MTV) has shows that is unrelated to music (like Jersey Shore), and the History Channel has programs unrelated to History (Such as ice road truckers), or Animal Planet has shows unrelated to Animals (like the Haunted).
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
fox has several affiliates so are you referring to the fox news or an affiliate?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Ugh, debates like these...
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Con is gonna get creamed in this
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
WilloweedmythsterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had better points overall, and used sources to prove his point.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
WilloweedmythsterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes the basic mistake of implying causality. About half of the Democrats who voted for Obama believed Republicans were running Congress, when democrats gad both houses. That doesn't prove that Democrats or the news media were spreading false info. Con made the correct argument, but he barely showed up for the debate. He should have refuted many of Pro's claims, e.g., Obamacare will in fact add to deficits, etc.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
WilloweedmythsterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited an unscientific studies. He then switched to debating the "viewers" this failing to support his two prmises, a) Fox news is not reliable (asserting the negative) and b) Spreads (broadcast) propaganda. Con refuted the non scientific citations as well as can be expected absent delineating the scientific model for peer reviewed studies. I am sure there are at least 10 studies establishing Fox as fair and balanced, also unscientific.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
WilloweedmythsterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In all honesty, willoweed quotemined a little to be honest, could have done a bit more actual arguing, but I honestly think this is one of the better debates (even though mythster made no rebuttal of value, just correlation =/= causation, which is invalid in the circumstances). The win was easy, and I am adding this to my favourites simply due to quality of sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
WilloweedmythsterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: did con even give a counter argument??
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
WilloweedmythsterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided wonderful arguments and fulfilled the BoP. Pro issued many sources to prove his point. Con didn't use any sources, which damaged him.