The Instigator
ConfluxReflux
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Apophis66
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

CNN is Fake News

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 2/24/2018 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,898 times Debate No: 109454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

ConfluxReflux

Pro

Now, I am not checking if these are real, nor am I saying these are fake. Because in that case, the examples would be fake news. I'm just throwing examples here, then go ahead and argue. But first, we should get this out of the way, what is fake news? I believe fake news is news that was intended to be fake. Time for the examples.

http://i.redditmedia.com...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

=

Those are a couple of the examples I could find easily.

Fun fact: CNN is also kind of weird
Apophis66

Con

Lets get the definition of fake news out of the way. Fake news according to the Cambridge dictionary is:
"false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke:"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org...

Rather than making a coherent argument that CNN is fake news my opponent has chosen instead to simply post a bunch of links. You don't debate by posting links from reddit, you debate by using sources to articulate arguments in your own words to prove a conclusion.

In fact the one thing my opponent does say about his links is that, "Now, I am not checking if these are real, nor am I saying these are fake." My opponent has not even checked his own sources or even verified their validity so why does he expect you to trust them? In fact using sources that you haven't checked is the best way of creating fake news yourself.

Lets now address the links my opponent posted:
http://i.redditmedia.com...

This one shows a CNN headline conflicting with another one. But no context is actually given about the story and you certainly can't form any conclusions by just looking at headlines and not investigating the details of the story.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

In this one two CNN reporters on video are talking to each other in the same location. How does that prove the story itself is fake?

This is a video of a CNN reporter removing a man from a floating truck with no arguments as to why its fake.

=

In this video it is claimed that CNN lied about Ted Cruz refusing to do an interview even though he did. But the video leaves out the possibility that Cruz did an interview with CNN but then refused at another point to do another.

Being weird doesn't mean the stories are fake.

Another point to make here is that simply having a few fake stories does not make an entire organization fake news if the vast majority of stories are legitimate. All organizations will make some mistakes and nobody is perfect. Also being biased doesn't mean the stories themselves are completely fabricated. It would be better to argue that maybe CNN is biased or sometimes inaccurate but to claim that they are as a whole fake news and generally publish fabricated news stories is totally without evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
ConfluxReflux

Pro

Nah, I was just trying to find someone who would try to defend the pathetic network and get a little laugh. And I think you understand what I mean by fake news.

First one, is there not a photo? The second example, I linked the wrong link. They claimed they were in far away locations. For the hurricane, look at the comments of the video. For the final example, Ted Cruz had proof. I expected you to look at the comments and research the examples further, apologies for not explaining everything. For the final reply, no duh. I said, if you read it correctly, "Fun fact: CNN is also kind of weird."
Apophis66

Con

It seems like my opponent has the attitude that he can throw out unproven links, images, and reddit posts and its on the opposition to disprove him. The reality is that the burden of proof is on him.

First one, a picture of headlines proves nothing. Headlines tell you very little about the actual facts of the stories.

Second one, my opponent has admitted to sloppiness and using the wrong link and now claims they were deceptively far away from the hurricane without a shred of evidence and asks me to hunt down the evidence in some comments section. It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case not me.

Third one, he claims Ted Cruz has proof but my opponent fails to demonstrate what that proof even is. My opponent has the audacity to ask that I find his proof for his case for him when it is his burden to prove his case and then he himself admits that he didn't do a good job explaining anything and apologizes for it.

For the fourth, again the claim that CNN is weird has nothing to do with the debate topic of whether CNN is fake news or not.

My opponent also failed to respond to my point that a few mistakes doesn't make an organization and CNN has to overall be making fake stories not just in a few instances. Some real example of fakes news are the National Enquirer or The Onion whose main purpose is to create fake news and virtually all their stories are fabrications.
Debate Round No. 2
ConfluxReflux

Pro

Once again, this wasn't a debate. I simply created this "debate" to get enjoyment and laugh at the fact that someone is trying to defend this pathetic news channel. This was merely for my enjoyment and that only. Now, let us get to the main part. I wanted to see if you would look at the situations further rather than looking at the links and replying like this, "picture proves nothing." In the hurricane incident, where you state, "and asks me to hunt down the evidence in some comments section. It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case, not me." Isn't a bit more fun to know they looked at the evidence themselves without any help? It's okay, I know you can't scroll down a little bit and look at the first 5 comments. I was hoping for a more stupid debater to laugh at.
Apophis66

Con

"Once again, this wasn't a debate."

Never once before did my opponent claim that this isn't a debate. Its rather convenient that he is making this claim in the last round when the debate hasn't gone his way. If this isn't a debate then why make a debate in a debate section, challenge someone to debate, and then attempt to make debate arguments? In any case any debate made in the debate section is a debate and should be judged as such.

"Nah, I was just trying to find someone who would try to defend the pathetic network and get a little laugh."
"I simply created this "debate" to get enjoyment and laugh at the fact that someone is trying to defend this pathetic news channel. This was merely for my enjoyment and that only."
"I was hoping for a more stupid debater to laugh at."

My opponent now has made personal attacks and now is trying to use mockery in place of arguments. This violates the code of conduct on this forum and should lose points because of poor conduct.

"It is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case, not me."

My opponent is the one leveling a very serious accusation against a major organization. When making accusations it is common knowledge that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Can you prove for instance that you are not a rapist and have never raped anyone in your life? If you don't have footage of every moment of your life this will be incredibly difficult to prove. That is why the burden of proof is on your accuser to prove your guilt not you to prove your innocence.

I am not required to disprove arguments my opponent has made when he refuses to provide sufficient evidence for them. The lack of evidence is enough to remove his points from consideration. I have also shown that isolated incidents of fake news does not make an organization overall fake news and as we all know most of the time CNN is reporting on actual events even if many times they do have a bias and my opponent has failed to even address this point.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AJ101 2 years ago
AJ101
These days, everywhere you go you find fake news. .
Posted by darkwolf 3 years ago
darkwolf
The sad fact of the world is that political, preferences often affect how we receive the news. With the creation of the internet it was become incredibly easy to spread misinformation, and all media outlets obviously have their biases. For example Fox News a conservative media outlet, and CNN a liberal media outlet. But on the argument of fake news you have to look at what is really targeted by that, if it means out right lying then yes that is a problem. But if they mean blowing parts of a story out of proportion then every news outlet has been spouting fake news at us for years.Its all in the name media, these stations don't just exist to provide knowledge they have ratings to worry about so they will cater to their audience with stories that they will be interested in hence the amazing difference in the coverage of certain events.
Posted by DevoutBokonist 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
CNN is biased, but it never lies. It may focus on certain stories over others, but the stories it focuses on do actually happen. Everything the network claims is true and factual, and though it may run less bi-partisan stories, the stories it runs are not lies. I don"t love CNN, but to call them fake news is stupid. Just because it may expose one of of your favorite politicians, it doesn"t make it not true. In fact, it exposes many politicians through facts and never puts in false information or claims. People who call it fake news are just people who refuse to believe their favorite politician did something wrong, when they really did.
Posted by DevoutBokonist 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
CNN is biased, but it never lies. It may focus on certain stories over others, but the stories it focuses on do actually happen. Everything the network claims is true and factual, and though it may run less bi-partisan stories, the stories it runs are not lies. I don"t love CNN, but to call them fake news is stupid. Just because it may expose one of of your favorite politicians, it doesn"t make it not true. In fact, it exposes many politicians through facts and never puts in false information or claims. People who call it fake news are just people who refuse to believe their favorite politician did something wrong, when they really did.
Posted by DevoutBokonist 3 years ago
DevoutBokonist
CNN is biased, but it never lies. It may focus on certain stories over others, but the stories it focuses on do actually happen. Everything the network claims is true and factual, and though it may run less bi-partisan stories, the stories it runs are not lies. I don"t love CNN, but to call them fake news is bulkshit. Just because it may expose one of of your favorite politicians, it doesn"t make it not true. In fact, it exposes many politicians through facts and never puts in false information or claims. People who call it fake news are just people who refuse to believe their favorite politician did something wrong, when they really did.
Posted by ConfluxReflux 3 years ago
ConfluxReflux
Rather disappointing. I already claimed that this wasn't a debate by replying, "nah." This was said in response to your accusations that I am not forming a good debate. And this is where the good stuff comes in. You think I have no potential to debate. This is pretty much proven because you took my reply, "I was hoping for a stupider debater to laugh at" as an insult towards you. Nope. Let me take it slow for you. "I", meaning me, ConfluxReflux. "Was", the past tense of is. "Hoping", a synonym of expecting. "For" and "a" do not need to be discussed. "Stupider", meaning more stupid. "Debater", in this case, anyone who is contending against my argument. "To" does not need to be discussed. "Laugh-Okay, I'll stop. Therefore, I am stating that I was wishing for someone more stupid than you to debate with me, so I can get enjoyment out of it. Therefore, I could be calling you stupid, or smart. By the way I said that, that means you can only be less stupid than what I wanted you to be. I was hoping for one of those classic people who are actually stupid to appear here. Perhaps I misjudged the debaters on the website. I am so used to debating with people on Youtube. I apologize for your misunderstanding. Goodbye.
Posted by bfritts5 3 years ago
bfritts5
Dude just look up all the times CNN has faked stuff. They've faked protest.
And most recently they scripted one of the kids from Florida to say stuff on the news.
Using Tragedies to push your own political agenda
Posted by WOLF.J 3 years ago
WOLF.J
also piers morgan and nigel farage are muppets, don't listen to them. I know they correspond in the US. They bumlick so much, don't provide realistic views of the brits.
Posted by Stupidape 3 years ago
Stupidape
CNN isn't Fake News.

" First, in the centre of the concentric model, we have actual fake news. These are the stories that we commonly see shared on sites such as News Thump and The Onion. These satirical stories are written for comedic purposes and are put together to entertain."

"Despite the widespread use of the label, only one of these rings " the central and smallest group " is legitimately "fake news". "

As you can see CNN is bias, which is a shame in my opinion, yet they don't qualify as fake news. I personally would like to see an end to left political bias, it only makes for more polarization.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Posted by ConfluxReflux 3 years ago
ConfluxReflux
WOLF.J, I never said that isn't true. In fact, after this was over, I was going to make a debate called, "Fox always loves Trump."
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.