Fox News is not only Bias, but Deceitful
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 4/11/2008 | Category: | News |
| Updated: | 4 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 509 times | Debate No: | 3594 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (89)
Votes (30)
|
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.
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. |
![]() |
|
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.
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. |
![]() |
|
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.
"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. |
![]() |
30 votes have been cast for this debate.
Coming in September, 2008
A complete graphical breakdown of the votes by:
- Age Group
- Country
- Education
- Ethnicity
- Gender
- Ideology
- Income
- Political Party
- Religion
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:












I realize that. Which is why I'm talking with you instead of ignoring you.
"You will find that when you leave the safety and security of your parents home the only thing that will matter to you is gainful employment and that will not change for the rest of your life especially if you have kids."
If employment has ends such as child prostitution, I wouldn't care if I'm employed or not. I endorse things only if they are morally appealing for me. Things that destroy the environment and human dignity simply aren't what I will support. I doubt my sense of values will change just because I get older.
"Every single aspect of every single day of your life will revolve around oil. Oil is what makes the world go round. Without it everyone would starve to death and commerce would come to a complete stop. The next time you here some one say it all all about oil, just say you are damn right it is and that is all it will ever be about. The middle east supplies the world with half of all the oil consumed globally. You cant have a bunch of idiot dictators controlling the world by holding the worlds oil supply hostage unless they get what they want. Now another quote and I don't know who said it either. "The meek shall inherit the earth but not its mineral rights.""
1) So let's get off oil.
2) Not everyone would starve to death.
3) I'm glad we agree that the world is run by idiot dictators.
4) I hope I live in an era where oil runs out.
5) I hope you do too.
That being said.
I don't see how accepting homos means anarchy.
I give a "rat's behind" about plastic bottles. Why the hell does it matter if it "employs thousands of people to enable them to raise families and support themselves instead of having to collect a govt welfare check and govt cheese"? Plastic bottles uses up OIL, and UNNECESSARILY SO, and because of our 'great American attitude', we have PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE ISLANDS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FREAKIN' PACIFIC.
And are you God F***ing serious that EMPLOYMENT is your highest value? Cause I can bring up some pretty sick SH!T that's going on in this world that's based off of JUST THAT.
"If you're a conservative in your 20s, you have no heart. If you're a liberal in your 40s, you have no brain."