The Instigator
travis8352
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FolkCat1234
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

fox news is way less bias than msnbc

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...
FolkCat1234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 32112
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

travis8352

Pro

ANYBODY WHO HATES FOX NEWS AND LOVES MSNBC IS WELCOME TO DEBATE THIS TOPIC WITH ME.

fox news is way lesss bias than MSNBC because fox always has liberals and conservatives on the show to help debate the issue. on The O'Reilly Factor bill always has a liberal and a conservative to debate the issue. for example in the barack in a hard place segmant he has monica crowley a conservative and alan colmes a liberal. i forget the segmant but he has a segmant with mary kathrine ham the conservative and juan williams the liberal. he has a segmant with only Bob beckel who is the liberal. while ed schultz seemed to always have his agreement panal with 3 liberals and 1 conservative or 2 liberals and 1 conservative. shows like the five have 4 conservatives and 1 liberal. that may sound biased but its better than 5 conservatives and 1 liberal. MSNBCs the cycle has 3 liberals and 1 slightly right leaning conservative who takes the liberal side of things alot. hardball with chris matthews is geared to gun down republicans.
FolkCat1234

Con

Thanks for posting this debate. Just as a disclaimer-I don't identify as liberal or conservative or have any party affiliation, so I feel I am a qualified and objective participant in this debate. Fox News and MSNBC have both been regarded as jokes in the mass media world for quite a while. Fox News boasts such "unbiased" commentators as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Neil Cavuto, and formerly Glenn Beck. This list alone makes the notion of Fox being less biased than MSNBC absurd. Admittedly, MSNBC is just as liberal as Fox is conservative, but neither is more or less biased than the other.
Debate Round No. 1
travis8352

Pro

i dont watch huckabee so i wouldnt know about him. sean hannity is a conservative but the guests he brings on are usually 1 liberal and 1 conservative so its a ballanced argument there. sometimes he brings on only a conservative or only a liberal. the same goes for bill o'reilly. the barack in a hard place segment on his show he brings on a liberal who is alan colmes and one conservative who is monica crowly. he has a segmant with a center left liberal marc lamonte hill. he has a segmant with bob beckel who is a liberal. he has a segmant with a liberal juan williams and a conservative mary kathrin ham. those are segmants where you get the liberal side and the conservative side of the story. on ed schultz show on MSNBC the ed show he had an agreement panel where he brought on 3 liberals and 0 conservative. its not called the agreement panel but i like to call it that because thats what it is. he sometimes has 2 liberals and 1 conservative. neil cavuto does a business show and usually has a liberal and a conservative on to debate the issue. what about harball with chris matthews. a show where chris talks about how republicans hate women and how republicans hate gays and how they love guns. he does that for about 25 minutes. glenn becks show was a show where he never had guests and glenn told the truth. the riots that were happening in the middle east he predicted. glenn was a conservative so you will probably say hes biased but chris matthews is a liberal so why is he not biased. glenn beck argued both sides of the story on his show. he sometimes had guests like sam webb the leader of the us communist party and he demolished him in a debate. the fact is fox has both liberals and conservatives to bring you both sides of the story. there are deninatly more conservatives on fox. msnbc has almost no conservatives on its shows so they only bring you the liberal news and how they think everything is bush and the republicans fault. they barely reported the bengazi attacts because it was hillary clinton and barack obama who screwed up there.
FolkCat1234

Con

I have acknowledged the bias of MSNBC. MSNBC was undeniably terrible in their coverage (or lack thereof) of Benghazi. When you talk about "debates" on Fox, it is selective editing unless the shows are live. Bill O'Reilly ends up screaming over the liberals on his show. 65% of Glenn Beck's statements are ranked Mostly False, False, or Pants On Fire (entirely false) by Politifact.com. Chuck Todd, one of MSNBC's chief anchors, is well known for his (relative) objectivity.
Debate Round No. 2
travis8352

Pro

bill o'reilly may yell over the liberal guests on his show but he also yells over the conservatives when they are wrong. he was just yelling over laura ingram over the bible thumping thing. when i talk debates on fox i mean when sean hannity brings on guests to discuss the issue because hannity is a live show. bills show is pre recorded so it is edited to fit the time. i admit glenn beck is wrong in alot of his statements but where is the proof from politifact. but alot of stuff glenn beck predicted like the rioting in the middle east that went on and alot of stuff that has been in the news in the last few months he predicted back in 2010 and alot of people didnt believe him like bill o'reilly. i cant say that chuck todd is wrong on anything because i dont follow him at all. watching chris matthews lately he just said that wife beaters dont matter even after all this time saying republicans hate women. today the five agreed with obama that that AG in california is a good looking women so fox news doesnt always disagree with the president. it always seems that msnbc doesnt report anything that is the president or any democrats fault.
FolkCat1234

Con

During the presidency of George Bush, Fox was just as guilty of glossing over the failings of him as MSNBC is of Obama. The AG "gaffe" isn't really a "gaffe" since Obama and the AG knew each other and it was just a joke. Politifact URL: http://www.politifact.com...

"The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. " (verbatim from Wikipedia)
Debate Round No. 3
travis8352

Pro

i never did call the AG a gaffe and i dont think it was a gaffe i think obama was speaking the truth as do most people in the media, even piers morgan thinks obama wasnt out of line. the glenn beck thing i looked at that already but that is not all of his statements. they are not counting all of his statements so you cant solely rely on that. i do see that glenn beck does not always tell the truth and i didnt say that. back in 2006 msnbc was way more watchable and that was before they changed their lineup entirely. a recent study done shows msnbc was 85 percent opinion and 15 percent news. fox news was at 55 percent opinion and 45 percent news. cnn is 46 percent opinion and 54 percent news. heres the proof
http://stateofthemedia.org...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

fox used to be way more opinionated than any of the media and i think CNN use to be the most reliable news source. but now i think theblaze is the best news source but i never get to watch it because it isnt on directv.

i do admit that fox was always defending george bush but not everybody was. shepard smith was furious over bush taking two weeks to make a statement about hurricane katrina. bill o'reilly didnt always defend bush be hammared him on things to. i wouldnt know about hannity because i rarely watched him back then. i think the biggest defender of bush today is dana perino because she was the press secretery under bush. the problem i have is that MSNBC protects obama way more than fox protected bush. MSNBC is always saying that the debt is republicans fault and liberals like bob beckel say the debt doesnt matter but in the future it will matter alot more than it is now. they are always bragging up obama on how many jobs hes creating. neil cavuto says hes happy obamas creating jobs but he doesnt like the fact that obama isnt doing anything on the debt and yet msnbc fails to even realize we have a debt problem.
FolkCat1234

Con

During the presidency of Bush, Fox was more biased in its coverage of the Iraq war, with 73% of its "news" being opinionated. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

In that same article, Fox producer Dan Cooper is quoted as saying:

"In the morning, everyone is told what today's key issues are and how those issues are viewed by Fox News. The entire staff understands how the organization feels about them."

How is THAT unbiased? Fox may be more accurate now, but during a Republican administration it was beating its chest in favor of Bush. Fact: Fox is no less biased than MSNBC. Case closed.
Debate Round No. 4
travis8352

Pro

isnt it a good thing that they cover the war instead of never reporting it so your viewers dont know what is happening over there. and i never said they were un biased i said they are less biased than msnbc. you never saw on fox that the war is the republicans fault. it was a republican president but i think if we didnt go to war we would have been made as weak. msnbc was a better source for news back then. and not everybody on fox was for bush. they still have guys for obama. look at msnbc now. im talking now not back then.

the reason why i should win this debate is because i proved multiple times that fox news is more news than msnbc. fox is 55 percent opinion and 45 percent news while msnbc is 85 percent opinion and 15 percent news. i proved that fox provides both sides of the story by giving names of liberals that are hosts and how bill o'reilly gives both sides of the story by bringing on a liberal and a conservative. i proved the same for hannity while ed schultz always brought on 3 liberals and 0 conservatives or he just brought on 2 liberal and 1 conservative. my opponent kept giving me old studies about how fox was more biased in the past. i provided a new study that showed that fox was more news than msnbc.
FolkCat1234

Con

Thank you Travis for posting and continuing with this debate.

My opponent throughout this debate has continually relied on anecdotal evidence and skirted away from hard, statistical fact, because the facts exist to prove that Fox News is, was, and shall be no less biased than its liberal counterpart, MSNBC. He has also consistently attacked the credibility of MSNBC, a statement that I have conceded as true. MSNBC IS biased. This debate does not serve to exist to rag on MSNBC. This debate is to establish to this community the bias of Fox and its unyielding destruction of fact and its powering of the Republican machine. Thank you, and may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by travis8352 3 years ago
travis8352
induced. i really didnt see MSNBC reporting on the bengazi attacks probably because it was the presidents fault that 4 americans got killed because he declined the request for more security. fox has been reporting that for a long time and they have been pushing for answers.
if you feel so stongly that fox is more biased and rejects facts more because the liberals have the facts on their side then please debate me on this topic
Posted by induced 3 years ago
induced
the reason fox news is more bias is because they reject facts and logic way more often than the liberals on msnbc. fox news is a propaganda machine. liberals dont have to be bias because the facts agree with them
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MaqicDan 3 years ago
MaqicDan
travis8352FolkCat1234Tied
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: Everything inside me says vote pro because I agree with his points although there just wasn't enough clash by the pro. Travis you seemed hooked on your points and do not properly address his points, there were multiple times where you could of said something and you would be dominating [ such as attacking his sources more ] but I really just didn't see that clash - con gets my vote
Vote Placed by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
travis8352FolkCat1234Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Did not read the whole debate, but I noticed that Pro did not capitalize his sentences. For that reason, S/G to Con