• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is FOX news biased?

Is FOX News biased?

  • Yes

    Votes: 50 82.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 14.8%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • Total voters
    61
Chavez is a dictator, they are homicide bombers,

I don't disagree, but they shouldn't use those terms in their news coverage as though there was no controversy about them whatsoever.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and his middle name is Hussein

What possible reason do they have for CONSTANTLY using his middle name in their news feed? I don't know of any other politician who they regularly do this for. What a coincidence that they do it to the one guy who has a Middle Eastern sounding name. I'm sure there's no bias there. :roll:

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And I would say that any station that refers to them as suicide bombers or Chavez as a legitimate ruler leans to the left.

"Suicide bomber" was the standard term until the White House started using "homicide bomber." Using the standard term does not imply that it isn't a homicide.

Similarly, referring to Chavez as "Venezuelan President" instead of "Venezuelan Dictator" does not confer legitimacy. "President" is simply his title and is a neutral term. Saddam Hussein was a president, Vladimir Putin is a president, etc. That doesn't mean that they're freedom-loving democrats. Using the term "dictator" on their news coverage to describe Chavez is silly. Of course he's a dictator, but the fact is that there is controversy about this, so they shouldn't state it as fact.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Are you asserting that Hannity is a better debater than Colmes? You're joking right?

He's certainly louder and more assertive. He talks almost twice as much as Colmes does.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How many former Clinton cabinet members are on the payrolls of CNN and MSNBC?

What's your point? Those stations always try to get an opposing view as well...from a skilled debater, not a straw man.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
His outburst wasn't bizarre infact it was another example of how biased CNN is, why do you think he got pissed?

I have no idea. Carville was just being Carville. Novak should have been used to it by now. But don't change the subject; Novak was on CNN for years and he certainly isn't a RINO or a foil for anyone.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Buchanan's a paleo-con.

Umm no ****. This is relevant how?
 
Last edited:
TOT said:
We already debated that one but sure thing...
and yet you still point to it as fact.

TOT said:
...maybe this time you can use some of your own thoughts rather than a copy paste job like the last debate we had.
LOL! you sound bitter. I'll debate this too! has TOT *EVER* had an original idea? TOT, you tell us what it was. and we'll see if it wasn't something that one of your heroes already said. LOL!
 
TOT said:
Yes yes, the fact that majority of reporters are liberals has nothing to do with how they report the news.
Is Fox News biased? who cares? Let's appease TOT as he goes on quite the offensive rampage, making dozens of posts, bringing up all the standard "liberal media" talking points.

not all democrats are liberals. and sure, when most "experts" cited on news shows are right-leaning, then it seems that it doesn't have much to do with how they report the news.
 
I don't disagree, but they shouldn't use those terms in their news coverage as though there was no controversy about them whatsoever.

What's the controversy? It's a fact, if they were suicide bombers then they wouldn't be killing anyone save for themselves, words mean things.

What possible reason do they have for CONSTANTLY using his middle name in their news feed? I don't know of any other politician who they regularly do this for. What a coincidence that they do it to the one guy who has a Middle Eastern sounding name. I'm sure there's no bias there. :roll:

I've been watching fox all day today and haven't seen the middle name in there.


"Suicide bomber" was the standard term until the White House started using "homicide bomber." Using the standard term does not imply that it isn't a homicide.

Why is an inaccurate description the standard? This is like saying that because all the news is biased it's not biased simply because they all agree to be biased.

Similarly, referring to Chavez as "Venezuelan President" instead of "Venezuelan Dictator" does not confer legitimacy. "President" is simply his title and is a neutral term. Saddam Hussein was a president, Vladimir Putin is a president, etc. That doesn't mean that they're freedom-loving democrats. Using the term "dictator" on their news coverage to describe Chavez is silly. Of course he's a dictator, but the fact is that there is controversy about this, so they shouldn't state it as fact.

Again words mean things, President does convey legitimacy just as Dictator conveys illigetimacy.

He's certainly louder and more assertive. He talks almost twice as much as Colmes does.

Prove that figure.

What's your point? Those stations always try to get an opposing view as well, from an equally skilled debater. Carville and Novak, Begala and Carlson, etc.

Novak and Carlson were on the pay roll of a Republican President?

I have no idea. Carville was just being Carville. Novak should have been used to it by now.

No Carville was being a POS.

Umm no ****. This is relevant how?

He has about as much in common with modern Republicans as JFK has with modern Democrats.
 
Every time there is a news story about Obama (whether real or fabricated), FOX always prints his name on the news feed as "Barack Hussein Obama." In addition, they regularly refer to "homicide bombings" in Israel, and "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez" as though there was no controversy whatsoever about those labels. Whether or not you agree that they're accurate labels, they were obviously chosen to push a specific political agenda.

I have never seen or heard Fox News call Obama "Barack Hussein Obama." What is wrong with calling terrorist attacks in Israel "homicide bombings" or calling Hugo Chavez "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez" (Though I don't remember Fox News calling him a dictator).

On CNN and MSNBC, they call President Bush "Mr. Bush."

While it's true that many news sources have biases, most of them don't intentionally distort the news to fit those biases. You don't ever see the Wall Street Journal trying to smear Democrats, or the New York Times trying to smear Republicans. CNN and MSNBC almost always include a conservative perspective in their news analysis...FOX only has one liberal, and he's just a foil for Sean Hannity.

The New York Times definately shows more bias than Fox News. Also, CNN and MSNBC don't always show the conservative side of the story and often phrase stories with a liberal bias through their commentators (Like Wolf Blitzer, for example, especially when they talk with Michael Ware (I think that's his name)).

With that said, FOX is still much more accurate than some of the crap you can read online.

I agree.
 
In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican. A survey by the PEW research center and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and 7% as conservative.

Media bias in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberal is not the same as leftist, just so you know it.
 
What is wrong with calling Hugo Chavez "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez" (Though I don't remember Fox News calling him a dictator).

I dont know if they called him that, but if they did it would be wrong, because he was democratically elected. Calling him a dictator because of the new powers he got through a parliament vote is almost the same as calling Bush a dictator because of the powers he have over the US cabinet, and how much power the president and the cabinet have together. The vote of parliament in venezuela could be compared to the "patriot act" in the usa.
 
FOX is probably the most balanced of all the news networks.......It has many pundits from both side of the political spectrum......
 
Yes, No or I don't know. Very simple. State why for the first too.

It's said to be very biased toward the Right.
This is more or less common knowledge.
But I don't know, because i don't listen to it.

It's weird that Fox evolved that way, because when it first came out (when I was a kid, probably before you were born) it was considered to be an "alternative" to the 3 big networks, and was considered rather edgy and outre, with it's prime time line-up of things like "Married With Children" and "The Simpsons".
I know it's hard to imagine- these programs seem so tame now- but things like that were not shown on network television before Fox came along, and a lot of parents objected to their children watching it. For lack of a better description, I'll call it "the glamorization of dysfunctional families". That's what Fox specialized in. The other networks were still specializing in "Family Ties" and "Growing Pains" and other un-funny shows that idealized nuclear families at the time.
Fox's primetime line-up seemed irresistibly funny and au currant compared to these lame-arse shows.

But, that's all ancient history now.
And today, Fox has a reputation as the "conservative"- and right-aligned- network.
 
conserv.pat15 said:
I have never seen or heard Fox News call Obama "Barack Hussein Obama."

"Barack Hussein Obama" site:foxnews.com - Google Search

conserv.pat15 said:
I don't remember Fox News calling him a dictator.

"Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez" site:foxnews.com - Google Search

(Chavez was elected).

conserv.pat15 said:
The New York Times definately shows more bias than Fox News.

Please, please, please, put your money where your mouth is! Debate me on this. I've already set it up. You can stand in for Cold Dirt. I can't understand how or why rightwingers will make statements like this, but then dodge a full-out one-on-one debate about it. Well, wait, ... on second thought, I think I can understand it.

conserv.pat15 said:
Also, CNN and MSNBC ... often phrase stories with a liberal bias through their commentators ....

You didn't give any examples. I guarantee you for every example you can post, I can post something from the same network of stories phrased with a conservative bias.

TOT said:
That's because your assertion was bullshit.
typical argument for you, TOT.
 

"Barack Hussein Obama" site:cnn.com - Google Search


"Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez" site:cnn.com - Google Search

(Chavez was elected).

So was Hitler.

Please, please, please, put your money where your mouth is! Debate me on this. I've already set it up. You can stand in for Cold Dirt. I can't understand how or why rightwingers will make statements like this, but then dodge a full-out one-on-one debate about it. Well, wait, ... on second thought, I think I can understand it.

lmfao, your proof boils down to the fact that Fox has more news analysis than the NYT's well first of all the NYT's is a newspaper while Fox has to fill 24 hours, and second the NYT's editorials appear on the front page these days.
 
It's said to be very biased toward the Right.

By those who watch the for sure bias'd left leaning networks. They can't stand having an actual balanced news network that does not tow the liberal line.

This is more or less common knowledge.

It's a common assertion.

But I don't know, because i don't listen to it.

Then you aren't in a very good position to discuss it.
It's weird that Fox evolved that way, because when it first came out (when I was a kid, probably before you were born) it was considered to be an "alternative" to the 3 big networks, and was considered rather edgy and outre, with it's prime time line-up of things like "Married With Children" and "The Simpsons".

That is NOT the Fox News Network. Totally different thing and shows you are ignorant of the matter.
 

That is his middle name, so of course every network is going to have SOME mention of it. The point is that FOX just can't let his name go by on the news feed without referring to him as Hussein. They just can't resist.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

All this turns up is transcripts. Not one single mention of CNN calling him a dictator instead of president.
 
That is his middle name, so of course every network is going to have SOME mention of it. The point is that FOX just can't let his name go by on the news feed without referring to him as Hussein. They just can't resist.

Other than when it first became known I can't recall anywhere on FOX where it has been mentioned. What are you talking about?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Congrats TOT, you didn't refute the fact that Fox has referred to him as such. And you just have demonstrated the same righty bias at CNN.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Congrats again TOT, you didn't refute the fact that Fox has referred to him as such. And you just have demonstrated the same righty bias at CNN.



TOT said:
So was Hitler.
Your penchant for irrelevant relativistic non argument red herrings is rather tiresome.

My response:

Hitler is not Chavez.

TOT said:
lmfao, your proof boils down to the fact that Fox has more news analysis than the NYT's.
That's right, they absolutely do.

I'd be happy to take your debate to the private debate. Stand in for Cold Dirt, TOT. Make it count. Spell out your case in full. Make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about, or getting in to.
TOT said:
well first of all the NYT's is a newspaper while Fox has to fill 24 hours,
yes, obviously, and I accounted for that, acknowledged it, etc.
TOT said:
...and second the NYT's editorials appear on the front page these days.
example? So let's count the percentages of opinion versus news on any single day. game?
 
Other than when it first became known I can't recall anywhere on FOX where it has been mentioned. What are you talking about?

Watch the little news feed that scrolls along the bottom of the screen sometime. A lot of the time they mention Obama on that feed, they refer to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."
 
Stinger said:
Other than when it first became known I can't recall anywhere on FOX where it has been mentioned. What are you talking about?
LOL! Now Stinger's recollection ability becomes the issue.

There are several mentions of "Barack Hussein Obama" in Fox News Transcripts on Lexis Nexis.

The first was in December 2006 on and the last a few days ago, during an interview with Ann Coulter.

He was only referred to as such AFTER he became a possible candidate for the Dem Presidential nomination.
 
Congrats TOT, you didn't refute the fact that Fox has referred to him as such. And you just have demonstrated the same righty bias at CNN.

Yes we know facts have a right wing bias.

Congrats again TOT, you didn't refute the fact that Fox has referred to him as such. And you just have demonstrated the same righty bias at CNN.

Again facts have a right wing bias.


Your penchant for irrelevant relativistic non argument red herrings is rather tiresome.

Facts are red herrings now?

My response:

Hitler is not Chavez.

He's a national socialist who upon taking office has expanded the powers of the executive exponentially. You said he was elected as if that were to mitigate the fact that he is a dictator, dictators can be elected too, hence the reference to Hitler.

That's right, they absolutely do.

And the NYT's is a paper and Fox News is a television station, and again the NYT's editorials appear on the front page these days.

I'd be happy to take your debate to the private debate. Stand in for Cold Dirt, TOT. Make it count. Spell out your case in full. Make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about, or getting in to. yes, obviously, and I accounted for that, acknowledged it, etc. example? So let's count the percentages of opinion versus news on any single day. game?

How does opinion make for a right wing bias and how can you compare a television station that has 24 hours to fill with a daily paper? And again the NYT's has a big problem editorializing their supposed news stories.
 
FOX News is my news channel, but I hold no illusions that it isn't biased. It touts itself as the "answer" to the liberal media bias of the other channels. That right there tells me that there is an agenda, even if it is just to discredit the other news networks.

Further, if you watch the evening line up, the majority of the shows are pundits and not journalists. While I adore Bill O'Reilly after giving him a chance, Sean Hannity is the smuggest SOB on cable. He is clearly biased to the right and poor Alan Colmes is almost a silent side kick. Also, it is telling that of the two pundits, the conservative one has his own show.

Also, this train wreck called the 1/2 Hour News Hour is clearly indicative of bias. It is supposed to be the conservative answer to the Daily Show...that in and of itself speaks volumes. Why does a non biased news network need a "conservative" answer to a show that comes on a COMEDY CHANNEL? Comedy that takes aim at politics is funny. Politics trying to pass off as comedy is propaganda.

Is Fox News biased? Of course it is. Is it any more biased than the other news networks? Hardly. The media is a human contact field...as such, it is always going to reflect the bias of the people who are behind it.
 
Back
Top Bottom