The Instigator
pittythefool
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
the_banjo_sender
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

western media knowing liars or openly honest?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2016 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 84460
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

pittythefool

Con

Weapons of mass destruction, one million dead children burnt to death or blown apart in their beds, homes and schools. Civilians shot dead, raped and tortured by their so called liberators. Some lies have grave consequences or give mad institutions excuse of purpose so maybe media outlets should also be held to account for their part in genocide ...just a thought!
the_banjo_sender

Pro

Pardon my ignorance, but did you in any way define what part the United States media has played in any genocides? Because I personally cannot think of any. If you could maybe do that, that would be great.

Also, media is allowed pretty much to do whatever they want. The only exceptions are: a.) report nothing that is entirely untrue and maybe b.) don't break any supremely important laws. Other than these, the media is curiously under-regulated.

Be this as it may, I do believe that genocide is breaking a supremely important law, so if you provide a flawless example of how the media directly caused any form of genocide, I shall concede. Maybe.
Debate Round No. 1
pittythefool

Con

OK thought it was obvious, I'll try to explain in simple terms. Wmod's (weapons of mass destruction) was one of the primary reasons given for the USA and UK to go to war with Iraq, if I can recall. I remember a new report outlining that Saddam had a mobile nuclear launcher of which he can deploy in 45 mins....now I recall this report being looped over a few weeks leading up to the invasion. Not only media in the USA but UK also..over hear we have bbc, itv, channel four, 5 news, CNN, fox, sky news, Russia today and aljezera to name a few. I flit through all of them...bit sad like that but no I clearly remember. So back to my point if the news is responsible for endorsing war, building a story that leads to war then I think in part they are responsible when the bombs are dropped as result of war?
the_banjo_sender

Pro

Pardon my ignorance, but how does any of the information you have provided have anything to do with the media causing genocide? As far as I can tell, you listed a slew of news programs and a report that they reported. Did the media in any way urge the government to kill a whole bunch of Iranians?

Also, all of the news programs I have seen are pretty factual, not stating opinions and explaining happenings from all sorts of world views. I have never seen a program advocate the killing of hundreds of people.
Debate Round No. 2
pittythefool

Con

No I won't pardon your ignorance. Its quite plain to me if you endorse information you know is false you are complicit with the crime. In this case quite possibly war crimes. Iranians....wrong country mate! Come on are you serious.
the_banjo_sender

Pro

Actually, I bet the report was on Iran. Could have been on Iraq, but Iraq is not as high on the list of possible nuclear threats. So... there. Also, pardoning ignorance is all we can do in this world of calamity and confusion, so I would appreciate it if you would reconsider.

Again, unless I am supremely stupid (not denying that possibility), I have not seen any instance in your case in which you have provided a case in which the media has intentionally reported wrong information that has led to genocide.

Please. Use simple language that us poor fools can understand and list one case, any case in which the media has intentionally "endorsed information they knew was false" that directly led to some form of war crime.

Thank you, and good morning.
Debate Round No. 3
pittythefool

Con

Lol your quite funny....OK only the recent ones this has taken up to much time already. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya others such as Sri Lanka, Colombia....the list goes on. Ponder it though...may take a while but that's cool!
the_banjo_sender

Pro

(picture me running around the room, screaming) AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Okay. I think I may have managed to pull myself together. I believe we are circling around the same issue, but you are taking one approach and I am taking a different approach and we are both to moronic to actually catch on to how the other is thinking. I wish I could say this was a first.

You have listed a whole slew of instances where you feel the media incited a war crime. This is, of course, exactly what I asked you to do. However, this is not what I intended you to do.

In one or more of these instances, can you explain HOW the media played a role in the given war crimes. SPECIFICALLY, mind you. Not just "they reported dud information" or "They made them mad." Nah. That won't cut it. Do this, and in the last round, I shall make a convincing counter argument to your points. Now, on to MY case, which, to be honest, I should have maybe started a little bit sooner.

Now, I will give you that the media does play a role in violence in the United States. According to aim.org, we are very accustomed to reacting to things we watch and hear, which has, in some select cases, led to more violence than we already have.

Be this as it may, the media is greatly important to society. For example, how would anyone outside of Paris have heard about the attacks? How would anyone know about the threat that ISIS has become? Who would know anything about the political state of this nation? Ordinary folk do not have regular access to the inner-workings of the government (whether this is good or not is another discussion.), and without the media, how would anyone know about anything happening in the country.

Also, the media pretty much have the right to say whatever they want to say, as long as it is somewhat true. They are allowed to manipulate the truth or put a certain spin on fact in order to express their views. AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO!

Besides, how would we hold media outlets to account for their actions? Would we shake our fingers at them, saying, "No, no. Bad Media!" I assume you would prefer something a little more drastic, in which case I ask you this: how would you determine which news facility is punished and which one isn't?

Based off of these issues, I don't see any way how the premise you proposed in your first round can be established fairly and reasonably.

Sources:
http://www.aim.org...
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
Debate Round No. 4
pittythefool

Con

Picturing you falling over would be more satisfying but hey...that's just my sense of humour.

I feel that you were being tactical earlier...however the mainstream media should be obligated to reporting well sourced information which is as accurate as possible. I have no head to list a glossarary of accounts as one should be enough. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started on false information that was fed to the news networks to muster public support for the wars. I supposed Im a little more empathic then most, hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed on the basis of these wars. Now do I believe the news networks should take some responsibility...hell yeh as with great power there should also be great responsibility. If the networks editors and management and owners give false info they should be liable. Now on a lighter note..if a network run a false story which was found later to be untrue..what you would be happy with just an apology...or would you be trying to sue for deformation. Maybe the poor people of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't as important as you...
the_banjo_sender

Pro

All right, all right! The example you provided was not the media's fault. You said yourself that the wars were "started on false information that was FED TO THE NEWS NETWORKS..." Say you are writing a research paper and one of your teacher-approved sources tells you something that isn't true. Should your teacher fail you because you believed something that a seemingly-valid source told you? Surely not!

In this case, the media did not intentionally spread false information for personal gain. They simply reported what they thought to be true. In this case, the providers of the information should be punished, not the media outlets.

In regards to intentional misreporting, I ask once again that you provide an example. I personally would sue the media station, yes, but first of all, only if the case was important enough, and secondly, not because the "poor people of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't as important." What does this statement have to do with anything, anyway? I feel as though this and the jibe about falling down was just rude.

Don't be rude. It makes me sad. :(
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
There are better iterations of this topic we debated in college.

Resolved: The news media has failed as the "forth estate"

Resolved: News media should not be a "for-profit" enterprise.

Resolved: New media has abused freedom of the press.
No votes have been placed for this debate.